In today's Townhall.com, Cliff May has a column which analyzes Israel's war against Hamas as just one battle in Islam's global insurgency. Here is his thought provoking column:
THE BATTLE OF GAZA
by Cliff May
What took place in Gaza and Israel over the past three weeks was not a war - it was one battle in a war. Or, to be more precise, it was one battle in what the soldier/scholar John Nagl has described as a "global insurgency" aimed at overthrowing the existing order, what we used to call - in a more confident era - the Free World.
"Yes, Allah is greater than America." Hamas supreme leader Khaled Mashaal said on al-Jazeera television a few years ago. "Allah is greater than the superpowers. We say to this West: By Allah you will be defeated."
Too many people refuse to understand: Hamas is not fighting for a Palestinian state. Hamas is fighting for the annihilation of Israel which it would replace with an Islamic emirate. Not the same thing at all.
Hamas takes inspiration, funding and instructions from the ruling mullahs of Iran, heirs to the Iranian Revolution that erupted 30 years ago next month when the Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile in France and established his theocratic regime. In the years since, Syria has become Iran's client; Hezbollah, based in Lebanon but with terrorist branches as far flung as South America, its proxy.
Israel's latest battle against Hamas began just after Christmas and ended just before the inauguration of Barack Obama. Israel's leaders apparently felt it prudent to announce a cease-fire before Obama sat down in the Oval Office and wrote "Stop the fighting!" at the top of his presidential to-do list.
In Arab and Muslim capitals, it did not go unnoticed that, as Hamas was being pounded by Israel, Iran did nothing to help. Nor was Hezbollah willing to open a second front on Israel's northern border. But as soon as a cease-fire was declared, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spun into action -- by spinning: According to official Iranian press reports, he called Mashaal -- who resides in Damascus rather than Gaza -- and told him: "Today is the beginning of victory!"
There are those who will believe him. But if Israel has succeeded in destroying most Hamas weapons caches and factories, as well as most of the tunnels through which Hamas imported thousands of missiles - even as it claimed Israel was blocking supplies of food, fuel and medicines through its "siege" - Israel achieved important, if short-term military goals.
Hamas spokesmen are saying they lost fewer soldiers than did the Israelis, and that they destroyed 47 Israeli tanks and armored vehicles. The carcasses of those machines have yet to be displayed for the cameras. And, by most accounts, Hamas fighters were short on both skills and fervor, despite Iranian and Hezbollah training. Many Hamas military commanders removed their uniforms and hid among women and children. "They turned houses and mosques into battlegrounds so that the people would protect them and those who trusted them now regret it," wrote Abd al-Fattah Shehadeh in the on-line Arabic newspaper ELAPH.
The European Union has warned that while humanitarian aid will be forthcoming, Gazans should not expect reconstruction assistance if Hamas continues to provoke new battles. "We don't want to go on to reconstruct Gaza every I-don't-know-how-many-years," said EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner. "We have been at the side of the Palestinian population always and we will be at their side, but at the same time it's also for the Palestinian population on both sides to say, ‘We want this peace.'"
That's a taller order than she probably understands. Prior to this battle it was not clear that most Palestinians wanted peace more than they wanted Israel's extinction. It's too soon to say whether their minds have been changed by the suffering they have endured. Even if that is the case, it would be unsafe for Gazans to say out loud that they'd prefer compromise in pursuit of coexistence to martyrdom in pursuit of victory.
There are those who will argue that Hamas wins merely by having survived. But Israel would have lost had it not fought -- had it continued to passively accept an endless rain of Hamas missiles on its citizens. Israelis knew that President Bush, during his final weeks in office, would not object if they tried to stop that rain. They don't yet know what President Obama will do in a similar circumstance.
Over the days ahead, Hamas may resume its attacks on Israel, or dig new tunnels to smuggle in new missiles to prepare for future attacks. If so, Israel may feel the need to respond strongly -- to re-establish deterrence and demonstrate that it can withstand pressure from those in the "international community" all too eager to try to appease radical Islam.
Iran will continue its drive to acquire nuclear weapons, a potential game-changer. But this is no game. It's a series of battles in a war that is likely to be as consequential as any in history.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
JUSTICE SERVED AND JUSTICE DENIED
Sometimes news about justice is good, at other times it's bad. Here are a couple of the most recent examples of justice served and justice denied.
(1) Presidential Pardons: Former President George W. Bush issued fewer pardons than most of his predecessors. He issued only 189 pardons and 11 commutations. On his last full day in office, Bush commuted the prison sentences of former Border Patrol officers Jose Compean (12 years) and Ignacio Ramos (11 Years) to time served (about 2 years).
The commutations for Compean and Ramos served the interests of justice. In 2005, they had intercepted a Mexican drug smuggler near El Paso and shot him in the ass as he fled back toward Mexico. After it appeared he had been unarmed, the officers tried to cover up the shooting by removing evidence from the scene, failing to report the incident to their superiors and falsifying their written reports. While waiting to testify aganst Compean and Ramos, their "victim" was arrested for sumggling in a large amount of marijuana.
Compean and Ramos were tried and convicted by a jury. The problem with this case is that the officers received those 12 and 11-year sentences because of a federal sentence enhancement (enacted by Congress in 1986) which mandates an additonal 10 years of prison time for a federal crime committed with a firearm.
As Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, has noted, the federal firearms sentence enhancement was "designed to deal with criminals who carry firearms in the commisssion of felonies and crimes of violence," but was applied to law enforcement officers who "came to work with no criminal intent, no mind set to commit any crime."
Law enforcement and anti-immigration groups were pleased with the commutation, although they had preferred that Compean and Ramos be granted a full pardon. Pro-immigration and civil rights groups were up in arms over the commutations, claiming they would send a message to officers that they had a green light to shoot unarmed illegal immigrants.
Former President Bush should be commended for issuing the commutations. Compean and Ramos remain convicted for their unlawful cover-ups but will not have to serve unreasonably excessive sentences for the use of firearms in the performance of their duties. JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED.
(2) In 1993, 18-year-old Gaylon Walbey, Jr. murdered Marionette Beyah, a college instructor, during the commission of a burglary at her Galveston, Texas home. He confessed to stabbing her 12 times in the neck and back, hitting her nine times in the head with a fire extinguisher and strangling her with an electrical cord. Walbey, now 34, was sentenced to death and has been on death row since 1994.
Now a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a new punishment hearing for Walbey because his defense attorney at the time failed to properly investigate that killer's troubled childhood. The three judges held that had the jury been presented with facts about Walbey's mistreatment during childhood, he might not have been sentenced to death.
Come on, give me a break. Why should anyone give a rat's ass about the troubled childhood of this merciless and vicious killer? This decision comes on the heels of another ruling by the same appellate court that a WHITE death row inmate must receive a new trial after 30 years because the prosecution excluded blacks from serving on his jury. (Refer to my blog, "Justice Gone Beserk," 1-16-09.) JUSTICE HAS BEEN DENIED.
In a case where JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED and served well, the International Court of Justice (World Court) has now ruled that the United States violated the court's order when Texas went ahead with the execution of Mexican national Jose Ernesto Medellin Rojas for the brutal rape and murders of two teenaged Houston girls. (Refer to my blog, "Hallelujah, Justice Has Finally Been Served," 8-6-08.)
The World Court, which is based in The Hague, Netherlands, had ordered last year that 51 Mexican citizens, Medellin among them, who had been sentenced to death in the United States must have their sentences stayed. The World Court ruled they had been denied the assistance of the Mexican consulate as required by the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (a treaty signed by the U.S.) because police officers had failed to advise them of that right. The court ruled that the cases had to be reviewd before any of the 51 Mexicans could be executed.
As I have said in previous blogs, the World Court should stop meddling in our internal affairs and confine itself to international border disputes, war crimes, genocide and other good stuff like that. So, once again I say to the World Court, butt out of America's criminal justice system and, above all, don't mess with Texas!
PLEASE NOTE: Blogger El Pato commented: "It appears you have given some sort of consent to the (Border Patrol) shooting incident and failure to report the incident." Let me assure El Pato, and any other readers who may think likewise, that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES will I ever condone the improper removal of evidence, the failure to report a shooting incident and the falsifying of reports. As for the shooting itself, I am not about to condemn Compean and Ramos for shooting a drug smuggler fleeing back to Mexico.
(1) Presidential Pardons: Former President George W. Bush issued fewer pardons than most of his predecessors. He issued only 189 pardons and 11 commutations. On his last full day in office, Bush commuted the prison sentences of former Border Patrol officers Jose Compean (12 years) and Ignacio Ramos (11 Years) to time served (about 2 years).
The commutations for Compean and Ramos served the interests of justice. In 2005, they had intercepted a Mexican drug smuggler near El Paso and shot him in the ass as he fled back toward Mexico. After it appeared he had been unarmed, the officers tried to cover up the shooting by removing evidence from the scene, failing to report the incident to their superiors and falsifying their written reports. While waiting to testify aganst Compean and Ramos, their "victim" was arrested for sumggling in a large amount of marijuana.
Compean and Ramos were tried and convicted by a jury. The problem with this case is that the officers received those 12 and 11-year sentences because of a federal sentence enhancement (enacted by Congress in 1986) which mandates an additonal 10 years of prison time for a federal crime committed with a firearm.
As Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, has noted, the federal firearms sentence enhancement was "designed to deal with criminals who carry firearms in the commisssion of felonies and crimes of violence," but was applied to law enforcement officers who "came to work with no criminal intent, no mind set to commit any crime."
Law enforcement and anti-immigration groups were pleased with the commutation, although they had preferred that Compean and Ramos be granted a full pardon. Pro-immigration and civil rights groups were up in arms over the commutations, claiming they would send a message to officers that they had a green light to shoot unarmed illegal immigrants.
Former President Bush should be commended for issuing the commutations. Compean and Ramos remain convicted for their unlawful cover-ups but will not have to serve unreasonably excessive sentences for the use of firearms in the performance of their duties. JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED.
(2) In 1993, 18-year-old Gaylon Walbey, Jr. murdered Marionette Beyah, a college instructor, during the commission of a burglary at her Galveston, Texas home. He confessed to stabbing her 12 times in the neck and back, hitting her nine times in the head with a fire extinguisher and strangling her with an electrical cord. Walbey, now 34, was sentenced to death and has been on death row since 1994.
Now a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a new punishment hearing for Walbey because his defense attorney at the time failed to properly investigate that killer's troubled childhood. The three judges held that had the jury been presented with facts about Walbey's mistreatment during childhood, he might not have been sentenced to death.
Come on, give me a break. Why should anyone give a rat's ass about the troubled childhood of this merciless and vicious killer? This decision comes on the heels of another ruling by the same appellate court that a WHITE death row inmate must receive a new trial after 30 years because the prosecution excluded blacks from serving on his jury. (Refer to my blog, "Justice Gone Beserk," 1-16-09.) JUSTICE HAS BEEN DENIED.
In a case where JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED and served well, the International Court of Justice (World Court) has now ruled that the United States violated the court's order when Texas went ahead with the execution of Mexican national Jose Ernesto Medellin Rojas for the brutal rape and murders of two teenaged Houston girls. (Refer to my blog, "Hallelujah, Justice Has Finally Been Served," 8-6-08.)
The World Court, which is based in The Hague, Netherlands, had ordered last year that 51 Mexican citizens, Medellin among them, who had been sentenced to death in the United States must have their sentences stayed. The World Court ruled they had been denied the assistance of the Mexican consulate as required by the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (a treaty signed by the U.S.) because police officers had failed to advise them of that right. The court ruled that the cases had to be reviewd before any of the 51 Mexicans could be executed.
As I have said in previous blogs, the World Court should stop meddling in our internal affairs and confine itself to international border disputes, war crimes, genocide and other good stuff like that. So, once again I say to the World Court, butt out of America's criminal justice system and, above all, don't mess with Texas!
PLEASE NOTE: Blogger El Pato commented: "It appears you have given some sort of consent to the (Border Patrol) shooting incident and failure to report the incident." Let me assure El Pato, and any other readers who may think likewise, that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES will I ever condone the improper removal of evidence, the failure to report a shooting incident and the falsifying of reports. As for the shooting itself, I am not about to condemn Compean and Ramos for shooting a drug smuggler fleeing back to Mexico.
TIME OUT FOR A LITTLE LEVITY
In these troubling economic times, a little humor might help to relieve, at least for a moment or two, some of the anxieties we are feeling over the possible loss of our jobs and our savings. So here's a few blonde jokes to lighten your day:
CAR TROUBLE
A blonde pushes her BMW into a gas station. She tells the mechanic it died.
After he works on it for a few minutes, it is idling smoothly.
She says, 'What's the story?'
He replies, 'Just crap in the carburetor'
She asks, 'How often do I have to do that?'
SPEEDING TICKET
A police officer stops a blonde for speeding and asks her very nicely if he could see her license.
She replied in a huff, 'I wish you guys would get your act together. Just yesterday you take away my license and then today you expect me to show it to you!'
RIVER WALK
There's this blonde out for a walk. She comes to a river and sees another blonde on the opposite bank. 'Yoo-hoo!' she shouts, 'How can I get to the other side?'
The second blonde looks up the river then down the river and shouts back, 'You ARE on the other side.'
AT THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE
A gorgeous young redhead goes into the doctor's office and said that her body hurt wherever she touched it.
'Impossible!' says the doctor. 'Show me.'
The redhead took her finger, pushed on her left shoulder and screamed, then she pushed her elbow and screamed even more. She pushed her knee and screamed; likewise she pushed her ankle and screamed. Everywhere she touched made her scream.
The doctor said, 'You're not really a redhead, are you?
'Well, no' she said, 'I'm actually a blonde.'
'I thought so,' the doctor said. 'Your finger is broken.'
KNITTING
A highway patrolman pulled alongside a speeding car on the freeway. Glancing at the car, he was astounded to see that the blonde behind the wheel was knitting!
Realizing that she was oblivious to his flashing lights and siren, the trooper cranked down his window, turned on his bullhorn and yelled, 'PULL OVER!'
'NO!' the blonde yelled back, 'IT'S A SCARF!'
BLONDE ON THE SUN
A Russian, an American, and a Blonde were talking one day.
The Russian said, 'We were the first in space!'
The American said, 'We were the first on the moon!'
The Blonde said, 'So what? We're going to be the first on the sun!'
The Russian and the American looked at each other and shook their heads. 'You can't land on the sun, you idiot! You'll burn up!' said the Russian.
To which the Blonde replied, 'We're not stupid, you know. We're going at night!'
IN A VACUUM
A blonde was playing Trivial Pursuit one night. It was her turn. She rolled the dice and she landed on Science & Nature.
Her question was, 'If you are in a vacuum and someone calls your name, can you hear it?'
She thought for a time and then asked, 'Is it on or off?'
DOG NAMES
A girl was visiting her blonde friend, who had acquired two new dogs, and asked her what their names were.
The blonde responded by saying that one was named Rolex and one was named Timex.
Her friend said, 'Whoever heard of someone naming dogs like that?'
'HELLLOOOOOOO......,' answered the blond. 'They're watch dogs!'
CAR TROUBLE
A blonde pushes her BMW into a gas station. She tells the mechanic it died.
After he works on it for a few minutes, it is idling smoothly.
She says, 'What's the story?'
He replies, 'Just crap in the carburetor'
She asks, 'How often do I have to do that?'
SPEEDING TICKET
A police officer stops a blonde for speeding and asks her very nicely if he could see her license.
She replied in a huff, 'I wish you guys would get your act together. Just yesterday you take away my license and then today you expect me to show it to you!'
RIVER WALK
There's this blonde out for a walk. She comes to a river and sees another blonde on the opposite bank. 'Yoo-hoo!' she shouts, 'How can I get to the other side?'
The second blonde looks up the river then down the river and shouts back, 'You ARE on the other side.'
AT THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE
A gorgeous young redhead goes into the doctor's office and said that her body hurt wherever she touched it.
'Impossible!' says the doctor. 'Show me.'
The redhead took her finger, pushed on her left shoulder and screamed, then she pushed her elbow and screamed even more. She pushed her knee and screamed; likewise she pushed her ankle and screamed. Everywhere she touched made her scream.
The doctor said, 'You're not really a redhead, are you?
'Well, no' she said, 'I'm actually a blonde.'
'I thought so,' the doctor said. 'Your finger is broken.'
KNITTING
A highway patrolman pulled alongside a speeding car on the freeway. Glancing at the car, he was astounded to see that the blonde behind the wheel was knitting!
Realizing that she was oblivious to his flashing lights and siren, the trooper cranked down his window, turned on his bullhorn and yelled, 'PULL OVER!'
'NO!' the blonde yelled back, 'IT'S A SCARF!'
BLONDE ON THE SUN
A Russian, an American, and a Blonde were talking one day.
The Russian said, 'We were the first in space!'
The American said, 'We were the first on the moon!'
The Blonde said, 'So what? We're going to be the first on the sun!'
The Russian and the American looked at each other and shook their heads. 'You can't land on the sun, you idiot! You'll burn up!' said the Russian.
To which the Blonde replied, 'We're not stupid, you know. We're going at night!'
IN A VACUUM
A blonde was playing Trivial Pursuit one night. It was her turn. She rolled the dice and she landed on Science & Nature.
Her question was, 'If you are in a vacuum and someone calls your name, can you hear it?'
She thought for a time and then asked, 'Is it on or off?'
DOG NAMES
A girl was visiting her blonde friend, who had acquired two new dogs, and asked her what their names were.
The blonde responded by saying that one was named Rolex and one was named Timex.
Her friend said, 'Whoever heard of someone naming dogs like that?'
'HELLLOOOOOOO......,' answered the blond. 'They're watch dogs!'
Monday, January 19, 2009
USELESS DEGREES
As a retired academic, it never fails to amaze me that so many institutions of higher (???) education offer cultural diversity degree programs wich can best be described as "useless." These degree programs, the brain children of the academic left, were established to serve specific students who were perceived to be members of oppressed minorities.
Many of our leading colleges and universities offer degrees in African-American Studies, Women's (Feminist Male Bashing) Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies and Transgender Studies. These cultural diversity degrees are useless to their holders except for those who plan to teach African-American Studies, Women's Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies or Transgender Studies.
If we are going to offer a bunch of special degree programs for certain racial, ethnic and gender groups, then we should also design such useless programs for all identifiable racial, ethnic, gender and other culturally diverse groups. I am sure that our esteemed left-wing academics would be quick to agree that restricting degree programs to only a few identifiable groups, whether oppressed or not, would be discriminatory and should not be tolerated. So, to all you leftie professors out there, here is a partial list of additional cultural diversity degree programs for your consideration:
Short People Studies
Bald Men Studies
Impotent Men Studies
Frigid Women (Headache) Studies
Cheating Husbands and Wives Studies (due to popularity of program, enrollment limited to 1,000 students per semester)
Child Molester Studies
Native-American Studies
Irish-American (Drunkard) Studies
Italian-American (Mafia) Studies
German-American Studies (students required to bring and drink Beck's beer during all lectures)
Anglo-American Studies (no students of color allowed)
Polish-American Studies (several courses same as courses in Texas Aggies Studies)
French-American (Snobbery) Studies
Nigerian-American (Scam Artist) Studies
Mexican-American Studies (bilingual classes)
Anti-American-American Studies (Oliver Stone is guest lecturer; due to popularity of program, enrollment limited to 500 students per semester)
Asian-American Studies
Cuban-American (Castro Bashing) Studies
Guatemalan/Honduran/Salvadoran-American Studies
Jamaican-American (Drug Posse) Studies
Dominican/Haitian-American (Voodoo) Studies
Palestinian-American (Death to the Jews)) Studies
Muslim-American (Death to the Infidels) Studies
Hindu-American (Snake Charming) Studies
Buddhist-American (Ohhmmmm) Studies
Jewish-American Studies (bilingual classes - English and Yiddish)
Protestant-American (Catholic Bashing) Studies
Catholic-American (Protestant Bashing) Studies
Mormon-American (Protestant and Catholic Bashing) Studies
Atheist-American (God Bashing) Studies
Texas Aggies Studies (classes taught at fifth-grade reading level and coloring books used instead of traditional texts; several courses same as courses in Polish-American Studies)
EDITOR'S NOTE: My deepest apologies to any groups who may feel slighted by my failure to include them in this list of degree programs.
Many of our leading colleges and universities offer degrees in African-American Studies, Women's (Feminist Male Bashing) Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies and Transgender Studies. These cultural diversity degrees are useless to their holders except for those who plan to teach African-American Studies, Women's Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies or Transgender Studies.
If we are going to offer a bunch of special degree programs for certain racial, ethnic and gender groups, then we should also design such useless programs for all identifiable racial, ethnic, gender and other culturally diverse groups. I am sure that our esteemed left-wing academics would be quick to agree that restricting degree programs to only a few identifiable groups, whether oppressed or not, would be discriminatory and should not be tolerated. So, to all you leftie professors out there, here is a partial list of additional cultural diversity degree programs for your consideration:
Short People Studies
Bald Men Studies
Impotent Men Studies
Frigid Women (Headache) Studies
Cheating Husbands and Wives Studies (due to popularity of program, enrollment limited to 1,000 students per semester)
Child Molester Studies
Native-American Studies
Irish-American (Drunkard) Studies
Italian-American (Mafia) Studies
German-American Studies (students required to bring and drink Beck's beer during all lectures)
Anglo-American Studies (no students of color allowed)
Polish-American Studies (several courses same as courses in Texas Aggies Studies)
French-American (Snobbery) Studies
Nigerian-American (Scam Artist) Studies
Mexican-American Studies (bilingual classes)
Anti-American-American Studies (Oliver Stone is guest lecturer; due to popularity of program, enrollment limited to 500 students per semester)
Asian-American Studies
Cuban-American (Castro Bashing) Studies
Guatemalan/Honduran/Salvadoran-American Studies
Jamaican-American (Drug Posse) Studies
Dominican/Haitian-American (Voodoo) Studies
Palestinian-American (Death to the Jews)) Studies
Muslim-American (Death to the Infidels) Studies
Hindu-American (Snake Charming) Studies
Buddhist-American (Ohhmmmm) Studies
Jewish-American Studies (bilingual classes - English and Yiddish)
Protestant-American (Catholic Bashing) Studies
Catholic-American (Protestant Bashing) Studies
Mormon-American (Protestant and Catholic Bashing) Studies
Atheist-American (God Bashing) Studies
Texas Aggies Studies (classes taught at fifth-grade reading level and coloring books used instead of traditional texts; several courses same as courses in Polish-American Studies)
EDITOR'S NOTE: My deepest apologies to any groups who may feel slighted by my failure to include them in this list of degree programs.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
EHUD THE BONEHEAD
I have often referred to Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, as "Ehud the Idiot." Olmert's inept leadership during the armed conflict in Lebanon weakened Israel and strengthened Hezbollah. Then he freed Samir Kantar, a Palestinian terrorist who was serving a 542-year sentence for the 1979 brutal murders of two men and a four-year-old girl, in exchange for the return of two dead Isaeli soldiers.
The cardinal rule in international diplomacy is that you never ever show your hand before you sit down to negotiate with your adversary. Ehud the Idiot has broken that rule at least twice.
(1) Israel has long maintained that it has a right to construct new settlement housing to account for normal population growth. Such construction is explicitly prohibited by the "Road Map to Peace" as laid out by the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. Israel tentatively agreed to "The Quartet's" plan.
One year ago, in an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Olmert admitted that Israel is violating the peace plan by continuing to construct new homes in the existing settlements. In the interview, Olmert stated: "There is a certain contradiction in this between what we're actually seeing and what we ourselves promised. Obligations are not only to be demanded of others, but they must also be honored by ourselves. So there is a certain problem here."
That idiotic statement did nothing more than weaken Israel's bargaining position and strengthen that of its adversary in any upcoming negotiations with the Palestinians. But the idiot didn't stop there.
(2) Olmert publicly stated that he wants Israel to give up "almost all" of the occupied West Bank and to give part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Last September the idiot told the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharanot: "The decision we are going to have to make is a decision we have been refusing for 40 years to look at open-eyed. Israel must withdraw from the lion's share of the territories. The time has come to say these things. The time has come to put them (the withdrawal from the West Bank and the division of Jerusalem) on the table."
Here the idiot showed his hand, albeit a suicidal one for Israel, before any serious negotiations have taken place. When the Palestinians heard this, they must have jumped up and down with overwhelming joy. Once again, Olmert has strengthened their position at the bargaining table.
Olmert has been thoroughy discredited by his conduct of the war with Hezbollah and by the corruption charges brought against him. Now he has committed the worst boner of all. As Israel began the third week of its war with Hamas, Olmert embarrassed the President of the United States and the American Secretary of State in a speech he gave in Hebrew to a crowd in Ashkelon, an Israeli town near the Gaza border.
Olmert, trying to overturn his reputation for ineptness, bragged to the crowd about his influence over President Bush. In yesterday's Townhall.com, Pat Buchanan devoted a whole column to what the idiot told that crowd in Ashkelon. Here are some excerpts from Buchanan's description of Olmert's speech:
He had, said Olmert, whistled up George Bush, interrupted him in the middle of a speech and told him to instruct Condi Rice not to vote for a U.N. resolution Condi herself had written. Bush did as told, said Olmert.
"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a cease-fire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favor.
"I said, 'Get me President Bush on the phone.' They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me.
According to Olmert, Bush was clueless.
"He said: 'Listen. I don't know about it. I didn't see it. I'm not familiar with the phrasing."
"I told him the United States could not vote in favor. It cannot vote in favor of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favor. ...
"She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favor."
According toBuchanan, Olmert is happily describing the egg on Rice's face: "He (Bush) gave an order to the secretary of state, and she did not vote in favor of it -- a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed. ..."
It must be noted that Buchanan, the late President Nixon's speech writer, is hardly a neutral observer in any controversy about Israel. From the very beginning, he has strongly opposed America's support of Israel. Buchanan insists that our support of the Jewish state does not serve the interests of the United States because it has turned the oil rich Middle East against us. Buchanan has also written a number of books and columns which contained anti-Semitic overtones.
Because Olmert's speech was poorly translated from Hebrew into English, Buchanan's description may not be very accurate. For instance, Olmert could not have interrupted Bush because the idiot's phone call was made quite a while before the President gave his speech. But if only half of Buchanan's description is true, and it probably is, a shameless Olmert has stuck his thumb right in America's eye. If he had any sense at all, he would not have given a public speech which was insulting and embarrassing to the president and secretary of stae of the only real friend Israel has had.
Calling him Ehud the Idiot is a monumental insult to idiots. "Ehud the Bonehead" is what I am going to call that bonehead from now on.
The cardinal rule in international diplomacy is that you never ever show your hand before you sit down to negotiate with your adversary. Ehud the Idiot has broken that rule at least twice.
(1) Israel has long maintained that it has a right to construct new settlement housing to account for normal population growth. Such construction is explicitly prohibited by the "Road Map to Peace" as laid out by the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. Israel tentatively agreed to "The Quartet's" plan.
One year ago, in an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Olmert admitted that Israel is violating the peace plan by continuing to construct new homes in the existing settlements. In the interview, Olmert stated: "There is a certain contradiction in this between what we're actually seeing and what we ourselves promised. Obligations are not only to be demanded of others, but they must also be honored by ourselves. So there is a certain problem here."
That idiotic statement did nothing more than weaken Israel's bargaining position and strengthen that of its adversary in any upcoming negotiations with the Palestinians. But the idiot didn't stop there.
(2) Olmert publicly stated that he wants Israel to give up "almost all" of the occupied West Bank and to give part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Last September the idiot told the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharanot: "The decision we are going to have to make is a decision we have been refusing for 40 years to look at open-eyed. Israel must withdraw from the lion's share of the territories. The time has come to say these things. The time has come to put them (the withdrawal from the West Bank and the division of Jerusalem) on the table."
Here the idiot showed his hand, albeit a suicidal one for Israel, before any serious negotiations have taken place. When the Palestinians heard this, they must have jumped up and down with overwhelming joy. Once again, Olmert has strengthened their position at the bargaining table.
Olmert has been thoroughy discredited by his conduct of the war with Hezbollah and by the corruption charges brought against him. Now he has committed the worst boner of all. As Israel began the third week of its war with Hamas, Olmert embarrassed the President of the United States and the American Secretary of State in a speech he gave in Hebrew to a crowd in Ashkelon, an Israeli town near the Gaza border.
Olmert, trying to overturn his reputation for ineptness, bragged to the crowd about his influence over President Bush. In yesterday's Townhall.com, Pat Buchanan devoted a whole column to what the idiot told that crowd in Ashkelon. Here are some excerpts from Buchanan's description of Olmert's speech:
He had, said Olmert, whistled up George Bush, interrupted him in the middle of a speech and told him to instruct Condi Rice not to vote for a U.N. resolution Condi herself had written. Bush did as told, said Olmert.
"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a cease-fire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favor.
"I said, 'Get me President Bush on the phone.' They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me.
According to Olmert, Bush was clueless.
"He said: 'Listen. I don't know about it. I didn't see it. I'm not familiar with the phrasing."
"I told him the United States could not vote in favor. It cannot vote in favor of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favor. ...
"She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favor."
According toBuchanan, Olmert is happily describing the egg on Rice's face: "He (Bush) gave an order to the secretary of state, and she did not vote in favor of it -- a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed. ..."
It must be noted that Buchanan, the late President Nixon's speech writer, is hardly a neutral observer in any controversy about Israel. From the very beginning, he has strongly opposed America's support of Israel. Buchanan insists that our support of the Jewish state does not serve the interests of the United States because it has turned the oil rich Middle East against us. Buchanan has also written a number of books and columns which contained anti-Semitic overtones.
Because Olmert's speech was poorly translated from Hebrew into English, Buchanan's description may not be very accurate. For instance, Olmert could not have interrupted Bush because the idiot's phone call was made quite a while before the President gave his speech. But if only half of Buchanan's description is true, and it probably is, a shameless Olmert has stuck his thumb right in America's eye. If he had any sense at all, he would not have given a public speech which was insulting and embarrassing to the president and secretary of stae of the only real friend Israel has had.
Calling him Ehud the Idiot is a monumental insult to idiots. "Ehud the Bonehead" is what I am going to call that bonehead from now on.
Friday, January 16, 2009
JUSTICE GONE BESERK
Three court cases in the news leave me with the impression that justice has gone beserk. One case involves the death penalty, another involves street gangs and the third concerns Hooters restaurants.
(1) On November 1, 1978, Jonathan Reed, posing as a maintenance man, gained entry into the Dallas apartment of two young women. Once inside, he attacked both women, raping and strangling one to death. Her roomate survived only because she feigned death as he was trying to strangle her. He was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape-murder. Reed, now 57, has been on death row nearly 30 years.
Now the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Reed was deprived of a fair trial because the Dallas County prosecutors had improperly excluded blacks from serving on the jury. The prosecutors had followed a guidance manual which advised them to exclude blacks from juries because "they almost always empathize with the accused." The three-judge panel in New Orleans ordered Reed to be released unless prosecutors intend to retry him quickly.
How can they retry him after 30 years? What's happened to the evidence? What about the witnesses? Where are they now or are they even still alive? There has never been a question about Reed's gluilt, only questions about the trial procedures. Have these judges lost their minds? It is really frightening to realize that these judges sit on what has long been considered the most conservative of all federal appellate courts.
OH, DID I FORGET TO MENTION THAT JONATHAN REED IS WHITE?
(2) Two days ago, a judge granted a permanent injunction sought by the Los Angeles city attorney against six gangs in South Los Angeles - All for Crime, Barrio Mojados, Blood Stone Villains, Florencia 13, Oriental Boyz and Pueblo Bishops - which limits gang members' activity in a 13.7-square-mile area stretching from downtown to South Los Angeles.
In an unrelated gang injunction case brought by the Los Angeles district attorney's office against Florencia 13, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a "friend of the court" brief arguing that the proposed order violates gang members' basic liberty in their daily lives by putting them under a curfew and banning them entirely from Roosevelt Park.
What has gone wrong with our courts? Thank God for the American Civil Liberties Union! Those young street gang members are only trying to have a little fun by stomping, stabbing and shooting each other to death. Why would the courts want to infringe on the rights of these young men to engage in their favorite pastimes? Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about?
(3) And so we come to the most serious case of all. In its early days, it was a real pleasure to fly Southwest Airlines because that carrier hired only leggy young women as flight attendants and outfitted them in hot pants. I am sure the only reason for the hotpants was to allow these young women to move about more freely within the cramped confines of the cabin. Then, 30 years ago, some commie, no doubt, sued Southwest demanding they hire male flight attendants. After a federal judge agreed, the airline took off the hotpants. Flying with Southwest has become less pleasant ever since they dropped their hotpants.
Hooters restaurants are known for their comely waitresses in orange shorts and skin-tight shirts who occasioally stop to twirl hula hoops. Now this great American institution is under attack by what must obviously be another commie. A Houston employment lawyer is representing a 22-year-old male college student who was denied an application to become a Hooters waiter. He claims that by employing only "Hooters Girls" as servers, the rstaurants are practicing illegal sex discrimination and depriving him and other men of the right to obtain gainful employment as waiters.
As of now, one can only guess whether or not the court will agree. But if it does, all red-blooded American men will be deprived of a most enjoyable meal. No longer will they be able to drool over the luscious tantalizing boobs, I mean luscious tantalizing meals pictured on the menu. Mixing male waiters in with the Hooters Girls is just plain downright un-American!
(1) On November 1, 1978, Jonathan Reed, posing as a maintenance man, gained entry into the Dallas apartment of two young women. Once inside, he attacked both women, raping and strangling one to death. Her roomate survived only because she feigned death as he was trying to strangle her. He was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape-murder. Reed, now 57, has been on death row nearly 30 years.
Now the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Reed was deprived of a fair trial because the Dallas County prosecutors had improperly excluded blacks from serving on the jury. The prosecutors had followed a guidance manual which advised them to exclude blacks from juries because "they almost always empathize with the accused." The three-judge panel in New Orleans ordered Reed to be released unless prosecutors intend to retry him quickly.
How can they retry him after 30 years? What's happened to the evidence? What about the witnesses? Where are they now or are they even still alive? There has never been a question about Reed's gluilt, only questions about the trial procedures. Have these judges lost their minds? It is really frightening to realize that these judges sit on what has long been considered the most conservative of all federal appellate courts.
OH, DID I FORGET TO MENTION THAT JONATHAN REED IS WHITE?
(2) Two days ago, a judge granted a permanent injunction sought by the Los Angeles city attorney against six gangs in South Los Angeles - All for Crime, Barrio Mojados, Blood Stone Villains, Florencia 13, Oriental Boyz and Pueblo Bishops - which limits gang members' activity in a 13.7-square-mile area stretching from downtown to South Los Angeles.
In an unrelated gang injunction case brought by the Los Angeles district attorney's office against Florencia 13, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a "friend of the court" brief arguing that the proposed order violates gang members' basic liberty in their daily lives by putting them under a curfew and banning them entirely from Roosevelt Park.
What has gone wrong with our courts? Thank God for the American Civil Liberties Union! Those young street gang members are only trying to have a little fun by stomping, stabbing and shooting each other to death. Why would the courts want to infringe on the rights of these young men to engage in their favorite pastimes? Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about?
(3) And so we come to the most serious case of all. In its early days, it was a real pleasure to fly Southwest Airlines because that carrier hired only leggy young women as flight attendants and outfitted them in hot pants. I am sure the only reason for the hotpants was to allow these young women to move about more freely within the cramped confines of the cabin. Then, 30 years ago, some commie, no doubt, sued Southwest demanding they hire male flight attendants. After a federal judge agreed, the airline took off the hotpants. Flying with Southwest has become less pleasant ever since they dropped their hotpants.
Hooters restaurants are known for their comely waitresses in orange shorts and skin-tight shirts who occasioally stop to twirl hula hoops. Now this great American institution is under attack by what must obviously be another commie. A Houston employment lawyer is representing a 22-year-old male college student who was denied an application to become a Hooters waiter. He claims that by employing only "Hooters Girls" as servers, the rstaurants are practicing illegal sex discrimination and depriving him and other men of the right to obtain gainful employment as waiters.
As of now, one can only guess whether or not the court will agree. But if it does, all red-blooded American men will be deprived of a most enjoyable meal. No longer will they be able to drool over the luscious tantalizing boobs, I mean luscious tantalizing meals pictured on the menu. Mixing male waiters in with the Hooters Girls is just plain downright un-American!
Thursday, January 15, 2009
WHY THE BIG THREE MAY BECOME THE BIG ZERO
Despite the bailout, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler may yet go under. They can't compete pricewise with the Japanese auto makers because of a huge pay and benefit differential.
Now I don't blame the United Auto Workers for trying to get the best possible pay and benefits for their members from the big three, but if the union does not make some substantial concessions, the auto workers may end up watching their employers go out of business. Then they will find themselves without any pay or benefits at all. According to Forbes:
Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers. Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year) GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year) Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)
Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S. ): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)
According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).
Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D., and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota , Honda or Nissan. Many industry analysts say the Detroit Three, must be on par with Toyota and Honda to survive. This year's contract, they say, must be "transformational" in reducing pension and health care costs.
What would "transformational" mean? One way to think about "transformational" would mean that UAW workers, with a high school diploma, would have to accept compensation equal to that of the average university professor with a PhD.
Then there's the "Job Bank"
When a D3 ( Detroit 3 carmaker) lays an employee off, that employee CONTINUES TO RECEIVE all benefits - medical, retirement, etc., etc., PLUS an hourly wage of $31/hour.
Here's a typical story.... Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne , signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits. "We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I just sit."
Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers as demanded by the United Auto Workers Union - UAW - as part of an extraordinary job security agreement.
Now the D3 wants Joe Taxpayer to pick up this tab in a $25 Billion bailout package - soon to be increased to $45 Billion if Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton have their way. The "Big 3" want this money - not to build better autos. No. They want it to pay the tab for Medical and Retirement benefits for RETIRED auto workers. Not ONE PENNY would be used to make them more competitive, or to improve the quality of their cars.
We ALL have problems paying for our Medical Insurance - but the Democrat leaders in Congress now want us to pay the Medical Insurance premiums of folks who have RETIRED from Ford, GM and Chrysler.
In Canada , the Conservative minority government must use taxpayers’ money to help out the auto industry. This is because the Liberals and the NDP have threatened to bring down the minority government if the auto workers don’t receive an "economic stimulus". The auto workers union bargained for high wages when the car industry was profitable, because the workers wanted their share. Now that the industry is losing money, the union insists that the workers can’t have their wages or benefits reduced.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Personally, I'm in no postition to complain about the retired autoworkers getting free medical insurance AS LONG AS they have to pay the premiums for their dependents. As a retired state employee, the state continues to pay for my medical insurance, but I have to pay the premiums for my wife.
Now I don't blame the United Auto Workers for trying to get the best possible pay and benefits for their members from the big three, but if the union does not make some substantial concessions, the auto workers may end up watching their employers go out of business. Then they will find themselves without any pay or benefits at all. According to Forbes:
Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers. Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year) GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year) Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)
Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S. ): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)
According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).
Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D., and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota , Honda or Nissan. Many industry analysts say the Detroit Three, must be on par with Toyota and Honda to survive. This year's contract, they say, must be "transformational" in reducing pension and health care costs.
What would "transformational" mean? One way to think about "transformational" would mean that UAW workers, with a high school diploma, would have to accept compensation equal to that of the average university professor with a PhD.
Then there's the "Job Bank"
When a D3 ( Detroit 3 carmaker) lays an employee off, that employee CONTINUES TO RECEIVE all benefits - medical, retirement, etc., etc., PLUS an hourly wage of $31/hour.
Here's a typical story.... Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne , signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits. "We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I just sit."
Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers as demanded by the United Auto Workers Union - UAW - as part of an extraordinary job security agreement.
Now the D3 wants Joe Taxpayer to pick up this tab in a $25 Billion bailout package - soon to be increased to $45 Billion if Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton have their way. The "Big 3" want this money - not to build better autos. No. They want it to pay the tab for Medical and Retirement benefits for RETIRED auto workers. Not ONE PENNY would be used to make them more competitive, or to improve the quality of their cars.
We ALL have problems paying for our Medical Insurance - but the Democrat leaders in Congress now want us to pay the Medical Insurance premiums of folks who have RETIRED from Ford, GM and Chrysler.
In Canada , the Conservative minority government must use taxpayers’ money to help out the auto industry. This is because the Liberals and the NDP have threatened to bring down the minority government if the auto workers don’t receive an "economic stimulus". The auto workers union bargained for high wages when the car industry was profitable, because the workers wanted their share. Now that the industry is losing money, the union insists that the workers can’t have their wages or benefits reduced.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Personally, I'm in no postition to complain about the retired autoworkers getting free medical insurance AS LONG AS they have to pay the premiums for their dependents. As a retired state employee, the state continues to pay for my medical insurance, but I have to pay the premiums for my wife.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
PARTNERS IN PEACE, MY ASS!
The international community has long been calling for the Israelis and the Palestinians to be partners in peace. All along, Israel has been pressured to cede "land for peace," and that pressure has also come from its only friend, the United States. The international community completely ignores the fact that the final goal of the Palestinians is to "liberate Palestine from the river to the sea," clearly meaning that there is to be no Jewish state.
Thomas Friedman, the Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columinst, says that when people on the other side of its borders have homemade rockets, the chances of Israel accepting an independent Palestinian state are zero. Friedman calls for a radical new approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict - a "NATO Trusteeship" for the West Bank and the Gaza strip (ABC This Week, 1-11-09).
About the long-running conflict, columnist George Will says, "Israel is not being provocative. Israel's being is provocative" to a bunch of people who want the Jewish state to go away (ABC This Week, 1-11-09).
If you recall, the Palestinians jumped up and down with joy and danced in the streets to celebrate the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon. They have celebrated every terrorist attack against innocent Jewish men, women and children, whether carried out inside Israel or elsewheres in the world. Time after time, the Palestinians have called for "Death to the Jews." In a recent (1-13-09) Townhall.com column, Dennis Prager described the Palestinians' support for terrorism against the Jews like this:
"It would be quite difficult to find many Palestinians who do not celebrate the deaths of Israeli Jews or non-Israeli Jews. This is not only reflected in Palestinian polls that show majority support for terrorism -- and terrorism means killing innocent Jews -- it is also reflected in Palestinian media, Palestinian schools, and Palestinian mosques that routinely glorify murderers of Jews, and refer to all Jews as monkeys and the like.
Take for example, Palestinian reaction to the 2001 Palestinian terror bombing of a Jerusalem Sbarro pizzeria in which 15 Jews, five of whom were two sets of parents and their children, were murdered and an additional 130 people were injured, some permanently maimed.
As reported by the Associated Press, a month later, Palestinian university students opened an exhibition that included a grisly re-enactment of that mass murder. The students built a replica of the Sbarro pizzeria, with fake blood, splattered pizza, a plastic hand dangling from the ceiling, and a fake severed leg wearing jeans and a bloody black sneaker.
The exhibit also includes a large rock in front of a mannequin wearing the black hat, black jacket and black trousers typically worn by ultra-Orthodox Jews. A recording from inside the rock calls out: O believer, there is a Jewish man behind me. Come and kill him, paraphrasing a verse in the Koran. It became a popular tourist attraction for Palestinians, to which Palestinian parents took their little children."
Palestinian-Americans, by and large, express the same hatred of Jews. This is especially true of Palestinian students enrolled in our colleges and universities.
In San Francisco, Palestinians demonstrating against Israel's conflict with Hamas carried Arabic signs which read: "Itbach al Yahud" (slaughter the Jews), "Falastin balad'na w'al Yahud qalab'na" (Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs), "ba ruh, ba dam, nafdeek ya Falastin" (with our soul, with our blood, we will cleanse you oh Palestine), "al mawt al Yahud" (death to the Jews).
In Columbus, Ohio, led by an Ohio State University professor, about 300 Palestinians and their supporters protested Israel's attacks on Gaza by chanting, "Palestine will be free from the river to the sea" and "Long live the intifada." The views expressed at the rally were that Israelis are colonialists, illegally there, murderers, and genocidal maniacs.
The international community and peacenicks count on "moderate" Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But Abbas speaks with a forked tongue. When speaking in English to American and European audiences, Abbas says he wants two states, Palestine and Israel, existing peacefully side by side. But whenever he speaks in Arabic to the Palestinians and other Jew-hating Arabs, that is a far cry from what he says. Time after time Abbas has made it clear in Arabic that there can be only one state, and that state is Palestine.
In view of all this, my question is, can Israel rely on the Palestinians as partners in peace? The answer is obvious. Hell no! Partners in peace, my ass! While I often disagree with Tom Friedman's views, I think his proposal of a NATO trusteeship for the West Bank and the Gaza strip is an excellent one. It is the most pragmatic proposal I've heard for resloving this long-running conflict.
Thomas Friedman, the Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columinst, says that when people on the other side of its borders have homemade rockets, the chances of Israel accepting an independent Palestinian state are zero. Friedman calls for a radical new approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict - a "NATO Trusteeship" for the West Bank and the Gaza strip (ABC This Week, 1-11-09).
About the long-running conflict, columnist George Will says, "Israel is not being provocative. Israel's being is provocative" to a bunch of people who want the Jewish state to go away (ABC This Week, 1-11-09).
If you recall, the Palestinians jumped up and down with joy and danced in the streets to celebrate the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon. They have celebrated every terrorist attack against innocent Jewish men, women and children, whether carried out inside Israel or elsewheres in the world. Time after time, the Palestinians have called for "Death to the Jews." In a recent (1-13-09) Townhall.com column, Dennis Prager described the Palestinians' support for terrorism against the Jews like this:
"It would be quite difficult to find many Palestinians who do not celebrate the deaths of Israeli Jews or non-Israeli Jews. This is not only reflected in Palestinian polls that show majority support for terrorism -- and terrorism means killing innocent Jews -- it is also reflected in Palestinian media, Palestinian schools, and Palestinian mosques that routinely glorify murderers of Jews, and refer to all Jews as monkeys and the like.
Take for example, Palestinian reaction to the 2001 Palestinian terror bombing of a Jerusalem Sbarro pizzeria in which 15 Jews, five of whom were two sets of parents and their children, were murdered and an additional 130 people were injured, some permanently maimed.
As reported by the Associated Press, a month later, Palestinian university students opened an exhibition that included a grisly re-enactment of that mass murder. The students built a replica of the Sbarro pizzeria, with fake blood, splattered pizza, a plastic hand dangling from the ceiling, and a fake severed leg wearing jeans and a bloody black sneaker.
The exhibit also includes a large rock in front of a mannequin wearing the black hat, black jacket and black trousers typically worn by ultra-Orthodox Jews. A recording from inside the rock calls out: O believer, there is a Jewish man behind me. Come and kill him, paraphrasing a verse in the Koran. It became a popular tourist attraction for Palestinians, to which Palestinian parents took their little children."
Palestinian-Americans, by and large, express the same hatred of Jews. This is especially true of Palestinian students enrolled in our colleges and universities.
In San Francisco, Palestinians demonstrating against Israel's conflict with Hamas carried Arabic signs which read: "Itbach al Yahud" (slaughter the Jews), "Falastin balad'na w'al Yahud qalab'na" (Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs), "ba ruh, ba dam, nafdeek ya Falastin" (with our soul, with our blood, we will cleanse you oh Palestine), "al mawt al Yahud" (death to the Jews).
In Columbus, Ohio, led by an Ohio State University professor, about 300 Palestinians and their supporters protested Israel's attacks on Gaza by chanting, "Palestine will be free from the river to the sea" and "Long live the intifada." The views expressed at the rally were that Israelis are colonialists, illegally there, murderers, and genocidal maniacs.
The international community and peacenicks count on "moderate" Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But Abbas speaks with a forked tongue. When speaking in English to American and European audiences, Abbas says he wants two states, Palestine and Israel, existing peacefully side by side. But whenever he speaks in Arabic to the Palestinians and other Jew-hating Arabs, that is a far cry from what he says. Time after time Abbas has made it clear in Arabic that there can be only one state, and that state is Palestine.
In view of all this, my question is, can Israel rely on the Palestinians as partners in peace? The answer is obvious. Hell no! Partners in peace, my ass! While I often disagree with Tom Friedman's views, I think his proposal of a NATO trusteeship for the West Bank and the Gaza strip is an excellent one. It is the most pragmatic proposal I've heard for resloving this long-running conflict.
Monday, January 12, 2009
SHOOT THE BASTARD!
The other day, another innocent driver died when a young car thief sped through a stop sign while being chased by the police and crashed into the victim's car. Now the victim's family is considering a law suit against the City of Houston and its police department. With respect to car chases, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Nationwide, there have been numerous deaths and injuries of innocents that have resulted from police car chases.
Call me "Attila the Hun" if you like, but I have a simple solution to this problem - shoot the drivers who flee from the police!
Then what about the lawsuits that are sure to ensue? Oh well, the cities will just have to chalk them up as the cost of doing business.
The courts have ruled that a police officer cannot shoot at a fleeing suspect unless that person offers an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another citizen, or that by allowing him to get away, the public will be placed in serious jeopardy.
According to those court rulings, if a fleeing suspect has a dangerous weapon in his possession and presents an imminent threat to the life of a citizen, an officer would be justified in shooting the bastard.
There is not a more dangerous weapon than a car that is being driven at a reckless high speed by a driver fleeing from the police who weaves in and out of traffic and disregards intersection stop signs and traffic control lights. So, shoot the bastard before he kills some innocent driver and/or his passenger(s) with that dangerous weapon.
Now right away someone is going to ask, what about some poor teenager that is fleeing from the police. Tough shit! If he gets killed, that is sure a lot better than some innocent citizen. The driver who was killed in Houston the other day, left behind a wife and two children. A passenger in his SUV was seriously injured.
I realize that if a fleeing driver were to be shot to death by the police, he would leave behind a grieving family, and his loss would be especially hard when it is the family of a teenager.
This brings up the question of whether or not the police should chase a fleeing car in the first place when they do not know for sure if the driver has committed a felony. If an officer has good reason to believe that the driver is not intoxicated and is only trying to escape from getting a traffic ticket, then don't chase him. Otherwise, shoot the bastard - he has a very dangerous weapon in his hands.
Call me "Attila the Hun" if you like, but I have a simple solution to this problem - shoot the drivers who flee from the police!
Then what about the lawsuits that are sure to ensue? Oh well, the cities will just have to chalk them up as the cost of doing business.
The courts have ruled that a police officer cannot shoot at a fleeing suspect unless that person offers an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another citizen, or that by allowing him to get away, the public will be placed in serious jeopardy.
According to those court rulings, if a fleeing suspect has a dangerous weapon in his possession and presents an imminent threat to the life of a citizen, an officer would be justified in shooting the bastard.
There is not a more dangerous weapon than a car that is being driven at a reckless high speed by a driver fleeing from the police who weaves in and out of traffic and disregards intersection stop signs and traffic control lights. So, shoot the bastard before he kills some innocent driver and/or his passenger(s) with that dangerous weapon.
Now right away someone is going to ask, what about some poor teenager that is fleeing from the police. Tough shit! If he gets killed, that is sure a lot better than some innocent citizen. The driver who was killed in Houston the other day, left behind a wife and two children. A passenger in his SUV was seriously injured.
I realize that if a fleeing driver were to be shot to death by the police, he would leave behind a grieving family, and his loss would be especially hard when it is the family of a teenager.
This brings up the question of whether or not the police should chase a fleeing car in the first place when they do not know for sure if the driver has committed a felony. If an officer has good reason to believe that the driver is not intoxicated and is only trying to escape from getting a traffic ticket, then don't chase him. Otherwise, shoot the bastard - he has a very dangerous weapon in his hands.
EX-CONS AS PAROLE OFFICERS?
Another blogger, "doc," made some comments on my latest blog, "Parole Officer Types." He concluded with, "I'd be interested in your thoughts on how you would match up the criminals and the POs." I tried to respond directly, but doc has not yet elected to publicly share his Profile. So, I will respond to him with this blog.
I do not believe matching up criminals with parole officers is the answer to effective supervision. There are too many logistical barriers. Because there are so many different types of criminals, each with their own qjuirks, it would almost take one parole officer for each parolee, and that would be an impossibility. By and large, parolees are assigned to parole officers based on where they live, so that they will be in a managable geographic area. Unfortunately, that's just the way it has to be.
It is of the upmost importance that the parole officer be both street-wise and con-wise, as well as brave. Unfortunately, college doesn't prepare you for that. Idealism is fine, but it matters little because case loads are too large for the parole officer to put that idealism to work. Protection of society from criminals has to be the primary consideration in the supervision of parolees. That is why I believe well educated ex-cops and former correctional officers make the best parole officers. Conversely, that is also why many MSWs are among the worst parole officers.
Managable case loads are extremely important. When I started out as a California parole agent, I had a "regular" case load. It was supposed to have no more than 70 parolees in it. However, I started out with 85 parolees, about 20 of whom were in jail, and they had to be seen at least once a week.
Because of my background as a narcotics officer, I was eventually assigned to the state's civil addict rehabilitation program. Case loads in this specialized program were not to exceed 30 parolees (I started out with more than 40) because it required frequent visits to the parolee's home and place of work. I was also required to conduct weekly group therapy sessions and surprise drug tests. Furthermore, you cannot properly supervise a bunch of drug addicts without conducting a certain amount of surveillance on them.
"doc" believes in specialization, but in California's civil addict program, the parole failure rate exceeded 60 percent. As an ex-cop, I had a lower failure rate, but it was still close to 50 percent. California also had special case loads for "high interest" cases with parolees whose crimes made major news headlines - child predators, gangsters, serial rapists, celebreties who committed violent crimes, etc.. These case loads were extremely small because the parole agent had to see each of his parolees in the field at least once a week.
In order for parole to succeed in protecting society, parole officers must not only be street-wise and con-wise, but they must also provide the kind of supervision that will be effective in preventing and detecting criminal behavior. That requires SURPRISE field visits to the parolees' homes and work sites. No parolee "reporting to his parole officer" crap, unless ordered to do so for a specific reason. Those office visits are, with few exceptions, worthless and a waste of the parole officer's time. Office visits that are not conducted for a special reason, enable the parole officer to know only what the parolee wants him to know.
As for those field visits, none of this 8-5 Monday through Friday business. Not only should field visits be conducted on a surprise basis, but those to the parolee's home should be conducted after dark, and occasionally on weekends. That is the only way a parole officer will be able to keep on top of the parolee's activities. Home visits by appointment have little valuse because, as with the office visits, the parole officer will see only what the parolee and his family want the officer to see.
It is important that, except in emergency cases, parole officers be required to adhere to a strict work schedule. Case loads should never exceed 80 parolees. For those case loads of 70-80, the parole officer should be limited to just two days in the office for paper work and for special appointments. For the remaining three days, two should be required for after dark home visits and, in some cases, surveillances. Some field work should be conducted on weekends. These case loads should require at least one home visit every three months, or more if necessary.
For special case loads of 30-40, there should be only one office day, with three evenings scheduled for home visits. And, of course, there has to be some weekend scheduling for those after dark home visits and surveillances. These case loads should require at least one home visit each month, or more if necessary.
Such work schedules will eliminate most MSWs from being parole officers because they will be too scared to go out after dark, especially into high-crime, gang-infested neighborhoods. After all, they didn't earn a masters degree to get shot, stabbed or have the shit kicked out of them. Good riddance! For the protection of society, parole needs to be much more of a law enforcement model than a social work one. The parole agency should also hire professional counselors to which parolees can turn or be assigend to for needed counseling.
This brings me back to the street-wise and con-wise parole officer. When I supervised the civil addict parolees, all of the addicts that were to be assigned to me or who had been returned from my case load, were housed in one dorm at the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). A correctional couselor was in charge of each CRC dorm. I was required to make frequent visits to (my) dorm and particiapate in the group couseling sessions which were conducted daily. That had me working closely with the correctional counselor for that dorm.
One day I learned that my dorm had a new counselor and that he was an ex-con who had done fderal prison time. What?!!! Me, an ex-cop having to work with an ex-con? Holy shit!!! Well, it took only the first visit for me to realized that I would be dealing with the best correctional counselor I've ever encountered. He was so wise to their ways, that the inmates in his dorm did not get away with anything.
A favorite pastime for the inmates at CRC was to stop up the toilets so they could visit inmates in other dorms when they had to take a crap. Well, those fun and games came to a quick stop. The ex-con counselor would not allow his cons to leave their dorm, would not call for a plumber, and made the inmates unplug the toilets themselves.
Another problem in the dorms was the theft of personal belongings. Each inmate had a footlocker and pad lock for his belongings. But as will happend, the inmates would frequently forget to lock their footlockers. You'll never guess what the ex-con counselor did the first time a footlocker theft was reported to him. Surpirse! He took away all the pad locks. That brought an end to the thefts because now the inmates were forced to police themselves.
What's the point? California had hired a number of ex-cons as correctional couselors and in most cases they turned out to be the best of the lot. Then why can't we hire some ex-cons as parole officers? California could not because its parole agents were state peace officers, and the law prevented anyone from becoming a peace officer if he had a felony conviction on his record.
I believe that a carefully screened ex-con, one who has been discharged from his sentence and has for a number of years led a conforming and productive life, would make an outstanding parole officer. He would be street-wise and con-wise, and most likely brave enought to venture into gang-infested neighborhoods after dark. His parolees would not be able to con him because he's been there and knows all their tricks. As an ex-cop and former parole agent, I would strongly urge that the laws be changed in order to enable selected ex-cons to become parole officers.
"doc," if you read this blog, I hope that I have responded to the comments you made, and that I have done so to your satisfaction.
I do not believe matching up criminals with parole officers is the answer to effective supervision. There are too many logistical barriers. Because there are so many different types of criminals, each with their own qjuirks, it would almost take one parole officer for each parolee, and that would be an impossibility. By and large, parolees are assigned to parole officers based on where they live, so that they will be in a managable geographic area. Unfortunately, that's just the way it has to be.
It is of the upmost importance that the parole officer be both street-wise and con-wise, as well as brave. Unfortunately, college doesn't prepare you for that. Idealism is fine, but it matters little because case loads are too large for the parole officer to put that idealism to work. Protection of society from criminals has to be the primary consideration in the supervision of parolees. That is why I believe well educated ex-cops and former correctional officers make the best parole officers. Conversely, that is also why many MSWs are among the worst parole officers.
Managable case loads are extremely important. When I started out as a California parole agent, I had a "regular" case load. It was supposed to have no more than 70 parolees in it. However, I started out with 85 parolees, about 20 of whom were in jail, and they had to be seen at least once a week.
Because of my background as a narcotics officer, I was eventually assigned to the state's civil addict rehabilitation program. Case loads in this specialized program were not to exceed 30 parolees (I started out with more than 40) because it required frequent visits to the parolee's home and place of work. I was also required to conduct weekly group therapy sessions and surprise drug tests. Furthermore, you cannot properly supervise a bunch of drug addicts without conducting a certain amount of surveillance on them.
"doc" believes in specialization, but in California's civil addict program, the parole failure rate exceeded 60 percent. As an ex-cop, I had a lower failure rate, but it was still close to 50 percent. California also had special case loads for "high interest" cases with parolees whose crimes made major news headlines - child predators, gangsters, serial rapists, celebreties who committed violent crimes, etc.. These case loads were extremely small because the parole agent had to see each of his parolees in the field at least once a week.
In order for parole to succeed in protecting society, parole officers must not only be street-wise and con-wise, but they must also provide the kind of supervision that will be effective in preventing and detecting criminal behavior. That requires SURPRISE field visits to the parolees' homes and work sites. No parolee "reporting to his parole officer" crap, unless ordered to do so for a specific reason. Those office visits are, with few exceptions, worthless and a waste of the parole officer's time. Office visits that are not conducted for a special reason, enable the parole officer to know only what the parolee wants him to know.
As for those field visits, none of this 8-5 Monday through Friday business. Not only should field visits be conducted on a surprise basis, but those to the parolee's home should be conducted after dark, and occasionally on weekends. That is the only way a parole officer will be able to keep on top of the parolee's activities. Home visits by appointment have little valuse because, as with the office visits, the parole officer will see only what the parolee and his family want the officer to see.
It is important that, except in emergency cases, parole officers be required to adhere to a strict work schedule. Case loads should never exceed 80 parolees. For those case loads of 70-80, the parole officer should be limited to just two days in the office for paper work and for special appointments. For the remaining three days, two should be required for after dark home visits and, in some cases, surveillances. Some field work should be conducted on weekends. These case loads should require at least one home visit every three months, or more if necessary.
For special case loads of 30-40, there should be only one office day, with three evenings scheduled for home visits. And, of course, there has to be some weekend scheduling for those after dark home visits and surveillances. These case loads should require at least one home visit each month, or more if necessary.
Such work schedules will eliminate most MSWs from being parole officers because they will be too scared to go out after dark, especially into high-crime, gang-infested neighborhoods. After all, they didn't earn a masters degree to get shot, stabbed or have the shit kicked out of them. Good riddance! For the protection of society, parole needs to be much more of a law enforcement model than a social work one. The parole agency should also hire professional counselors to which parolees can turn or be assigend to for needed counseling.
This brings me back to the street-wise and con-wise parole officer. When I supervised the civil addict parolees, all of the addicts that were to be assigned to me or who had been returned from my case load, were housed in one dorm at the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). A correctional couselor was in charge of each CRC dorm. I was required to make frequent visits to (my) dorm and particiapate in the group couseling sessions which were conducted daily. That had me working closely with the correctional counselor for that dorm.
One day I learned that my dorm had a new counselor and that he was an ex-con who had done fderal prison time. What?!!! Me, an ex-cop having to work with an ex-con? Holy shit!!! Well, it took only the first visit for me to realized that I would be dealing with the best correctional counselor I've ever encountered. He was so wise to their ways, that the inmates in his dorm did not get away with anything.
A favorite pastime for the inmates at CRC was to stop up the toilets so they could visit inmates in other dorms when they had to take a crap. Well, those fun and games came to a quick stop. The ex-con counselor would not allow his cons to leave their dorm, would not call for a plumber, and made the inmates unplug the toilets themselves.
Another problem in the dorms was the theft of personal belongings. Each inmate had a footlocker and pad lock for his belongings. But as will happend, the inmates would frequently forget to lock their footlockers. You'll never guess what the ex-con counselor did the first time a footlocker theft was reported to him. Surpirse! He took away all the pad locks. That brought an end to the thefts because now the inmates were forced to police themselves.
What's the point? California had hired a number of ex-cons as correctional couselors and in most cases they turned out to be the best of the lot. Then why can't we hire some ex-cons as parole officers? California could not because its parole agents were state peace officers, and the law prevented anyone from becoming a peace officer if he had a felony conviction on his record.
I believe that a carefully screened ex-con, one who has been discharged from his sentence and has for a number of years led a conforming and productive life, would make an outstanding parole officer. He would be street-wise and con-wise, and most likely brave enought to venture into gang-infested neighborhoods after dark. His parolees would not be able to con him because he's been there and knows all their tricks. As an ex-cop and former parole agent, I would strongly urge that the laws be changed in order to enable selected ex-cons to become parole officers.
"doc," if you read this blog, I hope that I have responded to the comments you made, and that I have done so to your satisfaction.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
PAROLE OFFICER TYPES
Yesterday I blogged about a retired Texas parole officer's well-intentioned but loony proposal that only psychology and sociology majors be hired as probation and parole officers. Today I am going to describe the different types of parole officers. (The same types can be found among probation officers.) They don't teach this in psychology or sociology.
THE PROGRESSIVE COP - Sees almost everything as either black or white, no in-between. Suspicious by nature. Expects strict adherence to each and every parole condition. Will treat parolees fairly within those parameters. Will always cooperate with the police, except when he believes the police are just on a fishing expedition.
THE TRADITIONAL COP - Is convinced that the parolee is going to screw-up from the get-go. Not out to get the parolee, but always looking for the worst in him. Will not give the parolee any slack. Will alwalys cooperate with the police, no questions asked.
THE SISSY SOCIAL WORKER - Believes the parolee is a victim of society. Will serve the needs of the parolee, even when that could be detrimental to society. (A California parole officer took one of his parolees to Tijuana to be treated by a Mexican doctor for a gunshot wound he suffered during an attempted liquor store holdup.) Finds it hard to cooperate with the police. When one of his parolees is returned to prison he will tearfully whine to him, "You let me down."
THE PSEUDO-PSYCHOLOGIST -Took a few psychology courses in college, Is convinced the parolee has been acting out as the result of a troubled childhood. Analyzes everything the parolee does and finds excuses for any misconduct. Will cooperate with the police, although somewhat reluctantly.
THE RIGHTEOUS CASE WORKER - As long as the parolee abides by all the rules, will help him in his efforts to succeed on parole. Will give the parolee some slack, but if he keeps screwing-up, will recommend revocation and return to prison. Wants to cooperate with the police but, like the progressive cop, will not do so if he thinks they are just on a fishing expedition.
THE MIDDLE CLASS STANDARD BEARER - Expects parolees to follow a middle-class life-style, regardless of their socio-economic background. (Some parole officers insist that all of their parolees open and maintain a bank savings account, take their families out to a nice restaurant once a week, and take them out to a cultural arts venue - theater, museum, etc. - once a month.) Will cooperate with the police.
THE EVANGELICAL - Expects parolees to attend church services every Sunday and bible study classes every Wednesday evening. Always carries the bible while on the job. Will not tolerate the use of the Lord's name in vain. If the parolee screws-up and faces return to prison, will sit down with the parolee and pray for him. Hallelujah! Will cooperate with the police.
THE THREE MONKEYS - Hears no evil, sees no evil, speaks no evil. Scared shitless he might get hurt on the job. Stays on only because he can't find a better paying job. A sure ticket for the parolee to continue his criminal ways while on parole. Will cooperate with the police, but only if that doesn't put him in harm's way.
Many parole officers will practice the attributes of two or more of these types, and that is as it should be. The sissy social worker will probably be one of the three monkeys. But you will never see the progressive and traditional cops as sissy social workers or the three monkeys. You should be able to conclude which of the types are the best and the worst.
All the do-gooder stuff notwithstanding and regardless of type, the guiding principle for all probation and parole officers must be that, first and foremost, probation and parole serve to protect society from criminals.
THE PROGRESSIVE COP - Sees almost everything as either black or white, no in-between. Suspicious by nature. Expects strict adherence to each and every parole condition. Will treat parolees fairly within those parameters. Will always cooperate with the police, except when he believes the police are just on a fishing expedition.
THE TRADITIONAL COP - Is convinced that the parolee is going to screw-up from the get-go. Not out to get the parolee, but always looking for the worst in him. Will not give the parolee any slack. Will alwalys cooperate with the police, no questions asked.
THE SISSY SOCIAL WORKER - Believes the parolee is a victim of society. Will serve the needs of the parolee, even when that could be detrimental to society. (A California parole officer took one of his parolees to Tijuana to be treated by a Mexican doctor for a gunshot wound he suffered during an attempted liquor store holdup.) Finds it hard to cooperate with the police. When one of his parolees is returned to prison he will tearfully whine to him, "You let me down."
THE PSEUDO-PSYCHOLOGIST -Took a few psychology courses in college, Is convinced the parolee has been acting out as the result of a troubled childhood. Analyzes everything the parolee does and finds excuses for any misconduct. Will cooperate with the police, although somewhat reluctantly.
THE RIGHTEOUS CASE WORKER - As long as the parolee abides by all the rules, will help him in his efforts to succeed on parole. Will give the parolee some slack, but if he keeps screwing-up, will recommend revocation and return to prison. Wants to cooperate with the police but, like the progressive cop, will not do so if he thinks they are just on a fishing expedition.
THE MIDDLE CLASS STANDARD BEARER - Expects parolees to follow a middle-class life-style, regardless of their socio-economic background. (Some parole officers insist that all of their parolees open and maintain a bank savings account, take their families out to a nice restaurant once a week, and take them out to a cultural arts venue - theater, museum, etc. - once a month.) Will cooperate with the police.
THE EVANGELICAL - Expects parolees to attend church services every Sunday and bible study classes every Wednesday evening. Always carries the bible while on the job. Will not tolerate the use of the Lord's name in vain. If the parolee screws-up and faces return to prison, will sit down with the parolee and pray for him. Hallelujah! Will cooperate with the police.
THE THREE MONKEYS - Hears no evil, sees no evil, speaks no evil. Scared shitless he might get hurt on the job. Stays on only because he can't find a better paying job. A sure ticket for the parolee to continue his criminal ways while on parole. Will cooperate with the police, but only if that doesn't put him in harm's way.
Many parole officers will practice the attributes of two or more of these types, and that is as it should be. The sissy social worker will probably be one of the three monkeys. But you will never see the progressive and traditional cops as sissy social workers or the three monkeys. You should be able to conclude which of the types are the best and the worst.
All the do-gooder stuff notwithstanding and regardless of type, the guiding principle for all probation and parole officers must be that, first and foremost, probation and parole serve to protect society from criminals.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY MAJORS TO STOP THE KILLINGS
Much has been in the news lately on the large number of black-on-black homicides. Houston is one of the cities with the highest ratio of young black men killing other young black men. The mayor of Houston, soon to be a cadidate for the U.S. Senate, has turned to the city's black ministers for the solution. Fat chance of that working.
A retired Texas parole officer has his own solution to this problem. Here are some parts of what he wrote in a letter to the Houston Chonicle:
"......All the years I have spent as a juvenile probation and parole officer have proven to me that these respective agencies (probation and parole) are nothing more than breeding grounds for future criminals. The same holds true for adult probation and parole agencies, which flood the probation and parole positions with graduates from instutions granting criminal justice degrees.
......It is not so much a problem of being able to decrease youth homicides as it is to alter those approaches that do not work. If I were in charge of hiring field officers for juvenile or adult supervision of deviants, they would all be psychology or sociology majors and/or successful sales people. They must succeed in altering anti-social behavior and must be able to 'sell' to the individual who is acting out in a negative way why it would be in his or her interests to avoid such negative behavior."
Psychology or sociology majors? Thank God this guy is retired. I've got news for him. California has already tried that. Back in the 1950's and 60s, when California's correctional philosophy favored the rehabilitation of criminals, the state hired mostly MSW (Master of Social Work) graduates as parole officers. The MSWs had lots and lots of psychology and sociology course work to their credit. Did they succeed at altering anti-social behavior? Not by a long shot.
The problem with sociology students is that they have been taught that people who end up in the correctional system are victims of society. And psychology majors have been taught that anti-social behavior is the sign of a troubled childhood, brought on when mommy looked backwards in the mirror while she was pregnant, or when daddy took away the rubber duckie he liked to play with in the bathtub.
I am not going to describe some of the ludicrous ways those MSWs tried to alter the anti-social ways of their probationers or parolees. It must have come as a shock to find they had to deal with members of an ingrained subculture far removed from their own middle class upbringing. The MSWs failed at dealing with people who were not the least bit eager or able lead an acceptable (by society) life style. More than half of all California parolees were returned to prison.
Sales people? Even a salesman who can sell refrigerators to the eskimos, would find it hard to sell a young man with his pocket full of money from selling dope on the idea of getting a minimum wage paying job.
That retired Texas parole officer missed the boat entirely. What about those black-on-black killers who have not yet entered the correctional system? There are plenty of those. They are the ones that are ingrained in the subcultrue of the "gangsta rap" life style. They are school dropouts. They have no father figure at home. Their families live in poverty or near-poverty. Their role models are the gold necklace wearing dope dealers or pimps who drive around in sporty cars.
The only way to stop all those killings is to take these young men out of that "gangsta rap" subculture and provide them with well paying jobs and a bright future. How do you do that with unskilled school dropouts? And even in good economic times, where will they find enough of those well paying jobs?
A retired Texas parole officer has his own solution to this problem. Here are some parts of what he wrote in a letter to the Houston Chonicle:
"......All the years I have spent as a juvenile probation and parole officer have proven to me that these respective agencies (probation and parole) are nothing more than breeding grounds for future criminals. The same holds true for adult probation and parole agencies, which flood the probation and parole positions with graduates from instutions granting criminal justice degrees.
......It is not so much a problem of being able to decrease youth homicides as it is to alter those approaches that do not work. If I were in charge of hiring field officers for juvenile or adult supervision of deviants, they would all be psychology or sociology majors and/or successful sales people. They must succeed in altering anti-social behavior and must be able to 'sell' to the individual who is acting out in a negative way why it would be in his or her interests to avoid such negative behavior."
Psychology or sociology majors? Thank God this guy is retired. I've got news for him. California has already tried that. Back in the 1950's and 60s, when California's correctional philosophy favored the rehabilitation of criminals, the state hired mostly MSW (Master of Social Work) graduates as parole officers. The MSWs had lots and lots of psychology and sociology course work to their credit. Did they succeed at altering anti-social behavior? Not by a long shot.
The problem with sociology students is that they have been taught that people who end up in the correctional system are victims of society. And psychology majors have been taught that anti-social behavior is the sign of a troubled childhood, brought on when mommy looked backwards in the mirror while she was pregnant, or when daddy took away the rubber duckie he liked to play with in the bathtub.
I am not going to describe some of the ludicrous ways those MSWs tried to alter the anti-social ways of their probationers or parolees. It must have come as a shock to find they had to deal with members of an ingrained subculture far removed from their own middle class upbringing. The MSWs failed at dealing with people who were not the least bit eager or able lead an acceptable (by society) life style. More than half of all California parolees were returned to prison.
Sales people? Even a salesman who can sell refrigerators to the eskimos, would find it hard to sell a young man with his pocket full of money from selling dope on the idea of getting a minimum wage paying job.
That retired Texas parole officer missed the boat entirely. What about those black-on-black killers who have not yet entered the correctional system? There are plenty of those. They are the ones that are ingrained in the subcultrue of the "gangsta rap" life style. They are school dropouts. They have no father figure at home. Their families live in poverty or near-poverty. Their role models are the gold necklace wearing dope dealers or pimps who drive around in sporty cars.
The only way to stop all those killings is to take these young men out of that "gangsta rap" subculture and provide them with well paying jobs and a bright future. How do you do that with unskilled school dropouts? And even in good economic times, where will they find enough of those well paying jobs?
JEW HATING JEWS
Professor Jennifer Lowenstein, the Associate Director of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Wisconsin, accuses Israel of unleashing "state terror" against Gaza and claims the Israeli conflict with Hamas is really part of a larger plot by evil Jews to dominate the world's wealth. Here is what she said:
"The state terror unleashed from the skies and on the ground against the Gaza Strip as we speak has nothing to do with Hamas. It has nothing to do with ‘Terror.’ It has nothing to do with the long-term ‘security’ of the Jewish State. Strip away the clichés and the vacuous newspeak blaring out across the servile media and its pathetic corps of voluntary state servants in the Western world and what you will find is the naked desire for hegemony; for power over the weak and dominion over the world’s wealth. Worse yet you will find that the selfishness, the hatred and indifference, the racism and bigotry, the egotism and hedonism … the callousness with which we indulge in them all are endemic to our very culture; thriving here like flies on a corpse."
Sounds like pure Marxist drivel. Lowenstein is typical of the left-wing academics who have infested our institutions of higher education. She not only expresses a hatred of Israel, but one of Jews as well. What she said does not disturb me nearly as much as the fact that Lowenstein is herself a Jew, albeit a self-hating one.
Of course, Lowenstein is not the only Jew hating Jew. In San Francisco, there were a number of politically correct Jews among the supporters of Palestinian demonstrators who carried Arabic signs like this: "Itbach al Yahud" (slaughter the Jews), "Falastin balad'na w'al Yahud qalab'na" (Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs), "ba ruh, ba dam, nafdeek ya Falastin" (with our soul, with our blood, we will cleanse you oh Palestine), "al mawt al Yahud" (death to the Jews).
I suspect that the Jews who supported the Palestinians in San Francisco were college students, or former students, who have been influenced by their left-wing professors. The academic left has long supported the Palestininas and condemned Israel as a terrorist state. One of the self-proclaimed Marxist professors at the college where I used to teach, has not only supported the Palestinians in the past, but he and his wife helped to organize pro-Palestinian demonstrations in front of the Israeli consulate in Houston.
The problem with American Jews who support Jew haters is that they have always lived the good life afforded them by this country. They have never been excposed to the type of hatred that Jews experienced during the Nazi era. They have never experienced the hatred of Jews in Muslim countries. They do not seem to realize that Jews are not wanted in much of the world and that Israel is the only safe haven for those who are persecuted because of their Jewish faith. And they ignore the fact that the "final solution" for the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world is the extermination of the Jewish state.
"The state terror unleashed from the skies and on the ground against the Gaza Strip as we speak has nothing to do with Hamas. It has nothing to do with ‘Terror.’ It has nothing to do with the long-term ‘security’ of the Jewish State. Strip away the clichés and the vacuous newspeak blaring out across the servile media and its pathetic corps of voluntary state servants in the Western world and what you will find is the naked desire for hegemony; for power over the weak and dominion over the world’s wealth. Worse yet you will find that the selfishness, the hatred and indifference, the racism and bigotry, the egotism and hedonism … the callousness with which we indulge in them all are endemic to our very culture; thriving here like flies on a corpse."
Sounds like pure Marxist drivel. Lowenstein is typical of the left-wing academics who have infested our institutions of higher education. She not only expresses a hatred of Israel, but one of Jews as well. What she said does not disturb me nearly as much as the fact that Lowenstein is herself a Jew, albeit a self-hating one.
Of course, Lowenstein is not the only Jew hating Jew. In San Francisco, there were a number of politically correct Jews among the supporters of Palestinian demonstrators who carried Arabic signs like this: "Itbach al Yahud" (slaughter the Jews), "Falastin balad'na w'al Yahud qalab'na" (Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs), "ba ruh, ba dam, nafdeek ya Falastin" (with our soul, with our blood, we will cleanse you oh Palestine), "al mawt al Yahud" (death to the Jews).
I suspect that the Jews who supported the Palestinians in San Francisco were college students, or former students, who have been influenced by their left-wing professors. The academic left has long supported the Palestininas and condemned Israel as a terrorist state. One of the self-proclaimed Marxist professors at the college where I used to teach, has not only supported the Palestinians in the past, but he and his wife helped to organize pro-Palestinian demonstrations in front of the Israeli consulate in Houston.
The problem with American Jews who support Jew haters is that they have always lived the good life afforded them by this country. They have never been excposed to the type of hatred that Jews experienced during the Nazi era. They have never experienced the hatred of Jews in Muslim countries. They do not seem to realize that Jews are not wanted in much of the world and that Israel is the only safe haven for those who are persecuted because of their Jewish faith. And they ignore the fact that the "final solution" for the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world is the extermination of the Jewish state.
Friday, January 09, 2009
BANG. OOPS, I MEANT ZAP
On New Year's Day, several officers with the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police were making some arrests on a crowded train station platform in Oakland, California. One of those arrested, an unarmed 22-year-old black man, was forced face down on the platform and then suddenly shot in the back by a white officer.
The incident was captured on a cell phone video and played over and over again on the internet and by the media. The young man's death led to several hours of rioting by members of Oakland's sizable black community. Cars were set on fire and storefronts were smashed. More than 100 rioteers were arrested and around 300 business establishments were damaged.
The shooting is being investigated by the Oakland Police Department and by the Alameda County District Attorney's office. The officer who shot the victim resigned from the BART police force and will most likely face criminal charges.
What would have caused the officer to shoot an unarmed man in the back, one who had been forced face down on the ground? Who knows? But some experts have questioned whether the officer fired his pistol deliberately or mistakenly believed he was using his tazer gun instead. Sound farfetched? Not really.
Because police tazer guns are designed similar to the pistols officers usually carry, sooner or later something like this was bound to happen. It is quite possible that in the highly-charged excitement of making an arrest, an officer could have confused his pistol with his tazer gun.
In order to prevent any such accidental police shootings, law enforcement agencies should immediately demand that manufacturers of police tazer guns change the configuration of those weapons so that they cannot be confused with a pistol.
The incident was captured on a cell phone video and played over and over again on the internet and by the media. The young man's death led to several hours of rioting by members of Oakland's sizable black community. Cars were set on fire and storefronts were smashed. More than 100 rioteers were arrested and around 300 business establishments were damaged.
The shooting is being investigated by the Oakland Police Department and by the Alameda County District Attorney's office. The officer who shot the victim resigned from the BART police force and will most likely face criminal charges.
What would have caused the officer to shoot an unarmed man in the back, one who had been forced face down on the ground? Who knows? But some experts have questioned whether the officer fired his pistol deliberately or mistakenly believed he was using his tazer gun instead. Sound farfetched? Not really.
Because police tazer guns are designed similar to the pistols officers usually carry, sooner or later something like this was bound to happen. It is quite possible that in the highly-charged excitement of making an arrest, an officer could have confused his pistol with his tazer gun.
In order to prevent any such accidental police shootings, law enforcement agencies should immediately demand that manufacturers of police tazer guns change the configuration of those weapons so that they cannot be confused with a pistol.
ATTENTION ALL PET OWNERS
One of my former students, now a good friend, sent me the following commandments. I think the 10th commandment is especially important. Although it broke my heart to have my beloved Suki put to sleep, I felt some comfort in cradling her in my arms as she passed away. I am certain that, in hugging Suki well past her last breath, she was able to feel just how much I loved her.
A PET'S TEN COMMANDMENTS.........
1. My life is likely to last 10-15 years. Any separation from you is likely to be painful.
2. Give me time to understand what you want of me.
3. Place your trust in me. It is crucial for my well-being.
4. Don't be angry with me for long and don't lock me up as punishment. You have your work, your friends, your entertainment, but I have only you.
5. Talk to me. Even if I don't understand your words, I do understand your voice when speaking to me.
6. Be aware that however you treat me, I will never forget it.
7. Before you hit me, before you strike me, remember that I could hurt you, and yet, I choose not to bite you.
8. Before you scold me for being lazy or uncooperative, ask yourself if something might be bothering me. Perhaps I'm not getting the right food, I have been in the sun too long, or my heart might be getting old or weak.
9. Please take care of me when I grow old. You too, will grow old.
10. On the ultimate difficult journey, go with me pl ease. Never say you can't bear to watch. Don't make me face this alone. Everything is easier for me if you are there, because I love you so.
~Remember that they can't do a lot of things for themselves and that they depend on you to make their life a quality life! Take a moment today to thank God for your pets. Enjoy and take good care of them.
A PET'S TEN COMMANDMENTS.........
1. My life is likely to last 10-15 years. Any separation from you is likely to be painful.
2. Give me time to understand what you want of me.
3. Place your trust in me. It is crucial for my well-being.
4. Don't be angry with me for long and don't lock me up as punishment. You have your work, your friends, your entertainment, but I have only you.
5. Talk to me. Even if I don't understand your words, I do understand your voice when speaking to me.
6. Be aware that however you treat me, I will never forget it.
7. Before you hit me, before you strike me, remember that I could hurt you, and yet, I choose not to bite you.
8. Before you scold me for being lazy or uncooperative, ask yourself if something might be bothering me. Perhaps I'm not getting the right food, I have been in the sun too long, or my heart might be getting old or weak.
9. Please take care of me when I grow old. You too, will grow old.
10. On the ultimate difficult journey, go with me pl ease. Never say you can't bear to watch. Don't make me face this alone. Everything is easier for me if you are there, because I love you so.
~Remember that they can't do a lot of things for themselves and that they depend on you to make their life a quality life! Take a moment today to thank God for your pets. Enjoy and take good care of them.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
A BRIEF HISTORY LESSON: WHAT LAND DID THE JEWS STEAL?
When asked if they support Israel in its conflict with Hamas, one finds a wide gulf between conservatives and liberals. In a recent Rasmussen Poll, 62% of Republicans in America sided with Israel, while only 31% of Democrats favored the Jewish state in the current conflict. Why are conservatives the only ones who will come to the defense of Israel's security measures? Why are liberals always ready to condemn the Jewish state's efforts to defend itself against terrorism?
In today's Townhall.com, conservative columnist Larry Elder gives us a brief history lesson, one which rebukes the long-held Palestinian claim that the Jews stole their lands. Here is Elder's brief history lesson:
ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS: WHO'S DAVID, WHO'S GOLIATH?
by Larry Elder
Much of the world buys the line -- peddled by the Palestinians and the Arab Muslim world and, indeed, many Western countries -- that paints Israel as the bad "Goliath" that "stole" the land from the "Palestinians."
Israel gave Gaza self-rule in 1994, unilaterally withdrawing the last of its citizens and soldiers from Gaza in 2005. Hamas, voted into power via free elections in 2006, fought and defeated their political and military rival, Fatah, to seize de facto control of Gaza in 2007. In the past eight years, Hamas has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars into Israel -- 7,000 of them after Israel's 2005 withdrawal. With improved technology -- reportedly assisted by Iran -- Hamas' rockets can now fly 24 miles before impact and explosion, thereby threatening, injuring and killing more and more Israelis living in southern Israel.
But why the "disproportionate" response by Israel? Reportedly, more than 600 Palestinians have been killed, some civilians. Set aside for the moment that Hamas' charter specifically calls for the "obliteration" of the state of Israel. And set aside the fact that the Palestinian "militants" fight in heavily populated areas, assuring, indeed encouraging (for PR purposes) civilian casualties.
We turn our attention to the "stolen" allegation.
Israel lies in the ancient Fertile Crescent's southwest corner, with some of the oldest archeological evidence of primitive towns and agriculture. Historians and archeologists believe the Hebrews probably arrived in the area in the second millennium B.C. The nation itself was formed as the Israelites left Egypt during the Exodus, believed to be in the late 13th century B.C.
The 12 tribes of Israel united in about 1050 B.C., forming the Kingdom of Israel. David, the second king of Israel, established Jerusalem as Israel's national capital 3,000 years ago. Jewish kingdoms and states existed intermittently in the region for a millennium.
After conquests by Babylonians, Persians and Greeks, an independent Jewish kingdom was briefly revived in 168 B.C., but Rome took control in the next century, renaming the land of Judea "Palestine" after the Philistines, historical enemies of the Israelites'.
Invading Arabs conquered the land from the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines) in A.D. 638 and attracted Arab settlers. Within a few centuries, the Arab language and Islam prevailed, but a Jewish minority remained. After a brief period of prosperity, waves of invasions and changes of control followed, including rule by the non-Arab empires of the Seljuks, Mamelukes and European crusaders, before becoming part of the Ottoman Empire from 1517 until 1918.
The crusaders massacred thousands of Jews, along with Muslims, in the 11th century. But soon thereafter, European Jews established centers of Jewish learning and commerce. By the time the Ottoman Turks occupied Palestine in the 16th century, according to British reports, as many as 15,000 Jews lived in Safed, which was a center of rabbinical learning. Many more Jews lived in Jerusalem, Hebron, Acre and other locations. By the middle of the 19th century, Jews constituted a significant presence -- often a majority -- in many towns.
Still, in the 19th century, the Holy Land looked mostly like a vast wasteland. When Jews began to return to their "promised land" early in the 20th century, the desert literally began to bloom under their industry. Arabs followed, coming in large numbers for the jobs and prosperity.
After four centuries of Ottoman rule, Britain took the land in 1917 and pledged in the Balfour Declaration to support a Jewish national homeland there. In 1920, the British Palestine Mandate was recognized. A declaration passed by the League of Nations in 1922 effectively divided the mandated territory into two parts. The eastern portion, called Transjordan, would later become the Arab Kingdom of Jordan in 1946. The other portion, comprising the territory west of the Jordan River, was administered as Palestine under provisions that called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
The United Nations, in 1947, partitioned the area into separate Jewish and Arab states along meandering and indefensible boundaries. The Arab world, insisting that any Jewish claim to Palestine was invalid, staunchly refused to compromise or even discuss the subject.
When Israel's independence was declared in 1948, Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq combined to crush the 1-day-old country. They lost. Still, Egypt occupied most of the Gaza Strip, and Transjordan (calling itself "Jordan") held most of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem. Neither Arab country gave the "Palestinians" a state.
The word "Palestinian," as employed today, is a relatively recent term. Until the end of the British mandate over Palestine, in 1948, all inhabitants of the area west of the Jordan River were known as "Palestinians." A Jewish person living in what is now Israel was a "Palestinian Jew." An Arab living in the area was a "Palestinian Arab." Likewise, a Christian was known as a "Palestinian Christian."
Israel won more land after a series of wars, land since returned or offered for return in exchange for peace. The Jews "stole" nothing.
In today's Townhall.com, conservative columnist Larry Elder gives us a brief history lesson, one which rebukes the long-held Palestinian claim that the Jews stole their lands. Here is Elder's brief history lesson:
ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS: WHO'S DAVID, WHO'S GOLIATH?
by Larry Elder
Much of the world buys the line -- peddled by the Palestinians and the Arab Muslim world and, indeed, many Western countries -- that paints Israel as the bad "Goliath" that "stole" the land from the "Palestinians."
Israel gave Gaza self-rule in 1994, unilaterally withdrawing the last of its citizens and soldiers from Gaza in 2005. Hamas, voted into power via free elections in 2006, fought and defeated their political and military rival, Fatah, to seize de facto control of Gaza in 2007. In the past eight years, Hamas has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars into Israel -- 7,000 of them after Israel's 2005 withdrawal. With improved technology -- reportedly assisted by Iran -- Hamas' rockets can now fly 24 miles before impact and explosion, thereby threatening, injuring and killing more and more Israelis living in southern Israel.
But why the "disproportionate" response by Israel? Reportedly, more than 600 Palestinians have been killed, some civilians. Set aside for the moment that Hamas' charter specifically calls for the "obliteration" of the state of Israel. And set aside the fact that the Palestinian "militants" fight in heavily populated areas, assuring, indeed encouraging (for PR purposes) civilian casualties.
We turn our attention to the "stolen" allegation.
Israel lies in the ancient Fertile Crescent's southwest corner, with some of the oldest archeological evidence of primitive towns and agriculture. Historians and archeologists believe the Hebrews probably arrived in the area in the second millennium B.C. The nation itself was formed as the Israelites left Egypt during the Exodus, believed to be in the late 13th century B.C.
The 12 tribes of Israel united in about 1050 B.C., forming the Kingdom of Israel. David, the second king of Israel, established Jerusalem as Israel's national capital 3,000 years ago. Jewish kingdoms and states existed intermittently in the region for a millennium.
After conquests by Babylonians, Persians and Greeks, an independent Jewish kingdom was briefly revived in 168 B.C., but Rome took control in the next century, renaming the land of Judea "Palestine" after the Philistines, historical enemies of the Israelites'.
Invading Arabs conquered the land from the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines) in A.D. 638 and attracted Arab settlers. Within a few centuries, the Arab language and Islam prevailed, but a Jewish minority remained. After a brief period of prosperity, waves of invasions and changes of control followed, including rule by the non-Arab empires of the Seljuks, Mamelukes and European crusaders, before becoming part of the Ottoman Empire from 1517 until 1918.
The crusaders massacred thousands of Jews, along with Muslims, in the 11th century. But soon thereafter, European Jews established centers of Jewish learning and commerce. By the time the Ottoman Turks occupied Palestine in the 16th century, according to British reports, as many as 15,000 Jews lived in Safed, which was a center of rabbinical learning. Many more Jews lived in Jerusalem, Hebron, Acre and other locations. By the middle of the 19th century, Jews constituted a significant presence -- often a majority -- in many towns.
Still, in the 19th century, the Holy Land looked mostly like a vast wasteland. When Jews began to return to their "promised land" early in the 20th century, the desert literally began to bloom under their industry. Arabs followed, coming in large numbers for the jobs and prosperity.
After four centuries of Ottoman rule, Britain took the land in 1917 and pledged in the Balfour Declaration to support a Jewish national homeland there. In 1920, the British Palestine Mandate was recognized. A declaration passed by the League of Nations in 1922 effectively divided the mandated territory into two parts. The eastern portion, called Transjordan, would later become the Arab Kingdom of Jordan in 1946. The other portion, comprising the territory west of the Jordan River, was administered as Palestine under provisions that called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
The United Nations, in 1947, partitioned the area into separate Jewish and Arab states along meandering and indefensible boundaries. The Arab world, insisting that any Jewish claim to Palestine was invalid, staunchly refused to compromise or even discuss the subject.
When Israel's independence was declared in 1948, Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq combined to crush the 1-day-old country. They lost. Still, Egypt occupied most of the Gaza Strip, and Transjordan (calling itself "Jordan") held most of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem. Neither Arab country gave the "Palestinians" a state.
The word "Palestinian," as employed today, is a relatively recent term. Until the end of the British mandate over Palestine, in 1948, all inhabitants of the area west of the Jordan River were known as "Palestinians." A Jewish person living in what is now Israel was a "Palestinian Jew." An Arab living in the area was a "Palestinian Arab." Likewise, a Christian was known as a "Palestinian Christian."
Israel won more land after a series of wars, land since returned or offered for return in exchange for peace. The Jews "stole" nothing.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
BIBI IS THE RIGHT CANDIDATE FOR THE JOB
In my blog, "Villains or Victims" (1-5-05), I wrtoe that the timing of the attacks on Gaza were designed to change the predicted outcome of the coming Israeli elections for prime minister. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the Kadima party candidate, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the Labor party candidate, are hoping the attacks against Gaza will strengthen their respective candidacies at the expense of Bibi Netanyahu, the Likud party candidate, who up to now has been heavily favored to win the election.
In today's Townhall.com, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have a column which backs my opinion on the timing of the war against Hamas. Morris and McGann believe that Livni and Barak are weak doves and do not think their war will lead to Netanyahu's defeat at the polls because the Israeli public sees Bibi, in contrast, as a strong leader. For Israel's sake, I sure hope Morris and McGann's prediction will prevail. Here is their Townhall.com column:
GAZA: THE DOVE'S WAR
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
The ostensible purpose of the war in Gaza is for Israel to wipe out Hamas and eliminate its capacity to rain rockets down on its citizens. Both the dovish leaders in the current Israeli government -- Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni, and Defense Minister Barak -- and the international diplomatic community want to get rid of Hamas and leave the more moderate Palestinian Authority as the sole negotiating agent for the Palestinians. So the Israeli attacks have not received the kind of international condemnation and vitriol that they usually attract.
But the real purpose of this war is to get Livni elected prime minister and defeat Bibi Netanyahu. It is no accident that after years in which 8,000 rockets have been fired from Gaza on Israel (3,000 in 2008 alone) that the Israeli government chose a moment six weeks before the Feb. 10 election to retaliate.
Livni and her likely coalition partner Barak need to show that they are tough enough to lead Israel. And the international community, desperate to avoid a Netanyahu government, is determined to let them.
But it won't work for one basic reason: Livni and Barak are weak compared to Netanyahu and won't bring the degree of force to bear necessary to accomplish their objective. Instead, they will wage the war with one eye on the international reaction and will pull the punches needed to bring Hamas to submission. They will not close the Gaza border to supplies, and they will cave in to demands to suspend the ground war long before it has silenced Hamas.
Livni and Barak will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by giving up before final victory is achieved. And their obvious failure to persevere will be all Netanyahu needs to win the election.
After all, Livni, Olmert and Barak have set a very high standard for success. Having triggered the war in order to stop Hamas' rocket attacks, they cannot stop it and declare victory unless the attacks do, in fact, stop. Hamas cannot let Israel silence its attacks while it still breathes and has life.
So the attacks won't stop. With 1.5 million homes to hide in, the Israeli Army cannot hope to destroy every rocket and every launcher, and kill every terrorist. The attacks will continue, as they have continued, day after day, even during the invasion. And, faced with international pressure and the dissatisfaction war is causing in their internal party ranks, Livni and Barak will lose their gamble.
Barack Obama, for his part, has remained largely silent, declaring that America has "only one president at a time." But his silence is militated as much by his desire to see Livni get elected as by any support for Israel or reticence to speak out while Bush still serves. He needs Livni to win just as Bill Clinton needed the Labor Party and Shimon Peres to win while he was president.
If Israel is to be led by Netanyahu, Obama will be in perpetual conflict with the tough Israeli leader. He will constantly be constrained to try to hold Netanyahu back from military attacks on Iran and on Hamas and Hezbollah, and he won't bring Netanyahu to any negotiations until the Israeli leader feels he has a partner with whom to negotiate.
Netanyahu is not going to play the game of pretending that the emperor has clothes by believing that the Palestinian Authority represents anyone but itself. He will demand that the Palestinians show their interest in peace through negotiations by electing leaders who want to negotiate. Otherwise, land for peace will be DOA in the Israeli cabinet.
So it is in everybody's interest that Livni win, except for Israel's. Because Hamas and Iran represent real threats, not just phantoms, Israel will be ill served if the current demonstration of toughness leads them to elect doves for the next five years. Doves won't defeat terrorists.
In today's Townhall.com, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have a column which backs my opinion on the timing of the war against Hamas. Morris and McGann believe that Livni and Barak are weak doves and do not think their war will lead to Netanyahu's defeat at the polls because the Israeli public sees Bibi, in contrast, as a strong leader. For Israel's sake, I sure hope Morris and McGann's prediction will prevail. Here is their Townhall.com column:
GAZA: THE DOVE'S WAR
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
The ostensible purpose of the war in Gaza is for Israel to wipe out Hamas and eliminate its capacity to rain rockets down on its citizens. Both the dovish leaders in the current Israeli government -- Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni, and Defense Minister Barak -- and the international diplomatic community want to get rid of Hamas and leave the more moderate Palestinian Authority as the sole negotiating agent for the Palestinians. So the Israeli attacks have not received the kind of international condemnation and vitriol that they usually attract.
But the real purpose of this war is to get Livni elected prime minister and defeat Bibi Netanyahu. It is no accident that after years in which 8,000 rockets have been fired from Gaza on Israel (3,000 in 2008 alone) that the Israeli government chose a moment six weeks before the Feb. 10 election to retaliate.
Livni and her likely coalition partner Barak need to show that they are tough enough to lead Israel. And the international community, desperate to avoid a Netanyahu government, is determined to let them.
But it won't work for one basic reason: Livni and Barak are weak compared to Netanyahu and won't bring the degree of force to bear necessary to accomplish their objective. Instead, they will wage the war with one eye on the international reaction and will pull the punches needed to bring Hamas to submission. They will not close the Gaza border to supplies, and they will cave in to demands to suspend the ground war long before it has silenced Hamas.
Livni and Barak will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by giving up before final victory is achieved. And their obvious failure to persevere will be all Netanyahu needs to win the election.
After all, Livni, Olmert and Barak have set a very high standard for success. Having triggered the war in order to stop Hamas' rocket attacks, they cannot stop it and declare victory unless the attacks do, in fact, stop. Hamas cannot let Israel silence its attacks while it still breathes and has life.
So the attacks won't stop. With 1.5 million homes to hide in, the Israeli Army cannot hope to destroy every rocket and every launcher, and kill every terrorist. The attacks will continue, as they have continued, day after day, even during the invasion. And, faced with international pressure and the dissatisfaction war is causing in their internal party ranks, Livni and Barak will lose their gamble.
Barack Obama, for his part, has remained largely silent, declaring that America has "only one president at a time." But his silence is militated as much by his desire to see Livni get elected as by any support for Israel or reticence to speak out while Bush still serves. He needs Livni to win just as Bill Clinton needed the Labor Party and Shimon Peres to win while he was president.
If Israel is to be led by Netanyahu, Obama will be in perpetual conflict with the tough Israeli leader. He will constantly be constrained to try to hold Netanyahu back from military attacks on Iran and on Hamas and Hezbollah, and he won't bring Netanyahu to any negotiations until the Israeli leader feels he has a partner with whom to negotiate.
Netanyahu is not going to play the game of pretending that the emperor has clothes by believing that the Palestinian Authority represents anyone but itself. He will demand that the Palestinians show their interest in peace through negotiations by electing leaders who want to negotiate. Otherwise, land for peace will be DOA in the Israeli cabinet.
So it is in everybody's interest that Livni win, except for Israel's. Because Hamas and Iran represent real threats, not just phantoms, Israel will be ill served if the current demonstration of toughness leads them to elect doves for the next five years. Doves won't defeat terrorists.
FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA
The blogger of hourglass1941 (http://hourglass1941.blogspot.com) had an enlightening blog right in line with my "Villains or Victims" (1-5-09) blog. Since the hourglass1941 blog speaks for itself, here it is:
Ohio State Professor Defends Hamas & Palestinian Supporters Equate Two State Solution to Ethnic Cleansing
Columbus, Ohio. Palestinian Anti-Israel Rally. Janauary 5, 2009.
Did anybody let President Bush and Condoleezza Rice know that Palestinians have no intentions of accepting a two state solution to the Middle East crisis? I guess it should be obvious since two states have been rejected by Hamas, and by extension, the Palestinian people, for years now, but U.S. leaders continue to cover their ears chanting lalalalala.
The chants last night, however, by about 300 Palestinians and supporters in front of the Statehouse in downtown Columbus made the goal very clear...Palestine will be free from the river to the sea and Long live the intifada. The buzz at the rally was Israelis are colonialists, illegally there, murderers, and genocidal maniacs.
Some of the speakers were children. One child, who looked to be around age 7 and proudly prompted by his mother, sounded this call: Go forward young Muslims, wherever you are, to the light of Allah. Together we shall stand for the pleasure of Allah. He will forgive us, all say Insha'Allah. Go forward young Muslims wherever you are.
Makes you wonder what needs forgiven. And pleasure of Allah? It can only be hoped that it's not the oft quoted Jew killing in this Islamic Hadith:
"Mohammed said in his Hadith: 'The Hour [Day of Resurrection] will not arrive until you fight the Jews, [until a Jew will hide behind a rock or tree] and the rock and the tree will say: Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'" - Palestinian Authority TV Dec. 27, 2004 [Rebroadcast from July 13, 2003]
When I asked spokesperson Pranav Jani, Assistant Professor (of English) at The Ohio State University (and introduced with some sort of connection with the International Socialist Organization) if Hamas was a terrorist organization, he skirted the issue or applied moral equivalence to the United States. Jani led the chant Long live the Intifada. The first Intifada in the late eighties spawned Hamas. Jana soundly rejects a two state solution to the conflict. He, and it seemed, all the Palestinians and supporters at the rally support a one state solution.
During the entire rally, I did not hear one speaker state that the overall conflict is specifically the result of Gaza or the West Bank. It is the sheer existence of Israel. My sense is that Palestinians will not embrace peace alongside Israel. They want all the land from the river to the sea. Many times the protesters chanted No Justice. No Peace. I think what they really meant is No Israel. No war.
Ohio State Professor Defends Hamas & Palestinian Supporters Equate Two State Solution to Ethnic Cleansing
Columbus, Ohio. Palestinian Anti-Israel Rally. Janauary 5, 2009.
Did anybody let President Bush and Condoleezza Rice know that Palestinians have no intentions of accepting a two state solution to the Middle East crisis? I guess it should be obvious since two states have been rejected by Hamas, and by extension, the Palestinian people, for years now, but U.S. leaders continue to cover their ears chanting lalalalala.
The chants last night, however, by about 300 Palestinians and supporters in front of the Statehouse in downtown Columbus made the goal very clear...Palestine will be free from the river to the sea and Long live the intifada. The buzz at the rally was Israelis are colonialists, illegally there, murderers, and genocidal maniacs.
Some of the speakers were children. One child, who looked to be around age 7 and proudly prompted by his mother, sounded this call: Go forward young Muslims, wherever you are, to the light of Allah. Together we shall stand for the pleasure of Allah. He will forgive us, all say Insha'Allah. Go forward young Muslims wherever you are.
Makes you wonder what needs forgiven. And pleasure of Allah? It can only be hoped that it's not the oft quoted Jew killing in this Islamic Hadith:
"Mohammed said in his Hadith: 'The Hour [Day of Resurrection] will not arrive until you fight the Jews, [until a Jew will hide behind a rock or tree] and the rock and the tree will say: Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'" - Palestinian Authority TV Dec. 27, 2004 [Rebroadcast from July 13, 2003]
When I asked spokesperson Pranav Jani, Assistant Professor (of English) at The Ohio State University (and introduced with some sort of connection with the International Socialist Organization) if Hamas was a terrorist organization, he skirted the issue or applied moral equivalence to the United States. Jani led the chant Long live the Intifada. The first Intifada in the late eighties spawned Hamas. Jana soundly rejects a two state solution to the conflict. He, and it seemed, all the Palestinians and supporters at the rally support a one state solution.
During the entire rally, I did not hear one speaker state that the overall conflict is specifically the result of Gaza or the West Bank. It is the sheer existence of Israel. My sense is that Palestinians will not embrace peace alongside Israel. They want all the land from the river to the sea. Many times the protesters chanted No Justice. No Peace. I think what they really meant is No Israel. No war.
Monday, January 05, 2009
BERNIE MADOFF, THANKS A LOT
If you don't live under a rock, you know about the swindle perpetrated by Bernie Madoff on hundreds of investors and a score of charitable foundations. The media has consistently identified Madoff as a Jew. That is sure to encourage, reinforce and exacerbate anti-Semitism in this country. Why is it that the media has never referred to Enron crook Ken Lay's religious affiliation or to Gov. Rod Blagojevich's ethnicity?
On December 3, 2008, Rabbi Marc Gellman sent a long open letter to Madoff, fiercely condemning the crook for the multitude of damages he had done with his ponzi scheme. Gellman has served as the Rabbi at Temple Beth Torah in Melville, New Yorlk since 1981. I have chosen to reproduce only a small portion of Gellman's open letter, the part that takes Madoff to task for fanning the flames of anti-Semitism. Here is that portion:
"One of the very worst things you did has to do with the Jews. You are responsible for reviving the 'Jew game.' I heard of the Jew game from a boy who became a man last Saturday. I asked him once if he had ever experienced anti-Semitism in school. That is when he looked at the floor and told me about the Jew game. The game, played by anti-Semitic kids in school, was one in which they would hide around a corner, throw a quarter down the hall, and then when somebody picked up the quarter, they'd run at the person, shouting, 'You're the Jew!'
You did not cause the anti-Semitic insults about Jews and money, but you caused them to be revived. Not since Julius Rosenberg spied for the Soviet Union has one person so damaged the image and the self-respect of American Jews. I am not comfortable with the fact that so many of the articles about you specifically identify your prominent place in the Jewish community.
Ken Lay of Enron shame was never identified as a 'prominent Protestant energy broker.' The most aggressive accusers of the governor of Illinois seldom describe him as 'the prominent Serbian-American governor of Illinois.' Yes, it is unfair that your Jewishness has become part of the storyline. But you just reminded the bigots who grew up playing the Jew game that it still strikes a familiar chord.
You wiped out Joe Lieberman's accomplishments. You revived ancient bigotry against our people. You gave credence to the horrid accusations about Jews being untrustworthy and greedy. One offensive paper has a column called 'Jews in the News,' which focuses on some Jewish criminal or other to remind their sickening readers of the legitimacy of anti-Semitism. You are not just one of the 'Jews in the news' they seek. You are the apotheosis of their hate-filled world. You have given the Jew-haters material for a decade of hate gardening. You single-handedly revived the Jew game. This is what you have done."
To that I want to add: Bernie Madoff, you sorry piece of shit, thanks a lot.
On December 3, 2008, Rabbi Marc Gellman sent a long open letter to Madoff, fiercely condemning the crook for the multitude of damages he had done with his ponzi scheme. Gellman has served as the Rabbi at Temple Beth Torah in Melville, New Yorlk since 1981. I have chosen to reproduce only a small portion of Gellman's open letter, the part that takes Madoff to task for fanning the flames of anti-Semitism. Here is that portion:
"One of the very worst things you did has to do with the Jews. You are responsible for reviving the 'Jew game.' I heard of the Jew game from a boy who became a man last Saturday. I asked him once if he had ever experienced anti-Semitism in school. That is when he looked at the floor and told me about the Jew game. The game, played by anti-Semitic kids in school, was one in which they would hide around a corner, throw a quarter down the hall, and then when somebody picked up the quarter, they'd run at the person, shouting, 'You're the Jew!'
You did not cause the anti-Semitic insults about Jews and money, but you caused them to be revived. Not since Julius Rosenberg spied for the Soviet Union has one person so damaged the image and the self-respect of American Jews. I am not comfortable with the fact that so many of the articles about you specifically identify your prominent place in the Jewish community.
Ken Lay of Enron shame was never identified as a 'prominent Protestant energy broker.' The most aggressive accusers of the governor of Illinois seldom describe him as 'the prominent Serbian-American governor of Illinois.' Yes, it is unfair that your Jewishness has become part of the storyline. But you just reminded the bigots who grew up playing the Jew game that it still strikes a familiar chord.
You wiped out Joe Lieberman's accomplishments. You revived ancient bigotry against our people. You gave credence to the horrid accusations about Jews being untrustworthy and greedy. One offensive paper has a column called 'Jews in the News,' which focuses on some Jewish criminal or other to remind their sickening readers of the legitimacy of anti-Semitism. You are not just one of the 'Jews in the news' they seek. You are the apotheosis of their hate-filled world. You have given the Jew-haters material for a decade of hate gardening. You single-handedly revived the Jew game. This is what you have done."
To that I want to add: Bernie Madoff, you sorry piece of shit, thanks a lot.
VILLAINS OR VICTIMS?
In every conflict there is a villain and there is a victim. Which one it is depends on whose ox is being gored. In the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, it is in the eye of the beholder. The Palestinians and their supporters clearly see Israel as the villain. The Israelis and their supporters clearly see Israel as the victim of Palestinian terrorism.
The current conflict has its roots in the establishment 60 years ago of the Jewish state. Although Jews lived in what used to be known as Palestine long before Muhammad was born and have continued to live there since his birth, they are seen as European interlopers in the Muslim world.
Do the Palestinians have some legitimate grievances against Israel. Yes they do. A lot of Israeli land once belonged to the Palestinians. But it was the Arabs' attempt to prevent the birth of the Jewish state and their subsequent wars to destroy it, that is as much, if not more, responsible for the loss of Palestinian lands.
Life for the Palestinians has also been made difficult by Israel's harsh military controls in the territories captured during the 1967 war. But those harsh measures were put in place only after the Palestinians repeatedly sent suicide bombers into Israel proper to blow up cafes, nightclubs, bus stops, busses and other civilian targets.
In the context of villains or victims, the Muslim world, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia have all consistently viewed Israel as the villain and the Palestinians as the victims in every dispute between the two peoples. Israel is damned if it responds to terrorism and damned if it does not.
Those who see Israel as the villain would be well advised to look at the character of the pro-Palestinian demonstrations protesting Israel's attacks on Gaza which were held in San Francisco. The protesters carried signs which contained the following slogans in Arabic:
"Itbach al Yahud" (slaughter the Jews), "Falastin balad'na w'al Yahud qalab'na" (Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs), "ba ruh, ba dam, nafdeek ya Falastin" (with our soul, with our blood, we will cleanse you oh Palestine), "al mawt al Yahud" (death to the Jews), "Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahud, jaish-Muhammad saya'ud" (Khaybar Khaybar oh Jews, the army of Muhammad will return).
[That last slogan refers to the battle of Khaybar where the prophet Muhammad opportunistically attacked and slaughtered the Jews who had been hospitable to another Arab tribe. The subsequent sacking of Khaybar by Muhammad's forces re-energized the brigands who had flocked to his cause, and persuaded several Bedouin tribes to join Muhammad's forces in hopes of fun and profit.]
The San Francisco protesters also carried signs containing the following slogan in English: "Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea" - which states in no uncertain terms the intent of the Palestinians to destroy the Jewish state. And how did they come up with that slogan? It originated with the late Faisal Husseini, until his death the head of Mahmoud Abbas' "moderate" Fatah faction, who in 2001 told Egypt's weekly Al-Arabi that, "Our final goal is to liberate all of historical Palestine FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA."
As it happened to be, the vast majority of the protesters in San Francisco were not even Palestinians. About 80 percent were demonstrators from the Bay Area's well-established left-wing. And not surprisingly, some of those protesters were politically correct Jews.
With all the hatred against the Jewish state, what is Israel to do? Israel must look out for its security and long-term survival, the international community be damned! As George Will and other conservative commentators have noted: Land for peace does not work in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel cannot afford to return to its pre-1967 borders. That would be committing national suicide. It must maintain those parts of the West Bank which contain the permanent Israeli settlements. It must enlarge its nine-mile wide neck to keep it from being cut in half in the event of another war. It must not cede East Jerusalem to the Palestinians because that part would be a dagger pointed at the heart of Israel. For its survival, Israel must continue to have access to the headwaters of the Jordan River. And in order to keep its enemies at bay, Israel must continue to develop and maintain its nuclear weapons deterrent.
Israel has had every right to retaliate with all its might against the daily Gazan rocket barrages launched against its southern communities. But what about the timing of its attack against Gaza? It has more to do with Israeli politics than anything else. Ehud "The Idiot" Olmert, the discredited outgoing prime-minister, is trying to restore his tarnished reputation. Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, and Ehud Barak, the defense minister, are both candidates for prime-minister in the upcoming February elections.
Livni, the Kadima party candidate, and Barack, the Labor party candidate, are hoping the attacks against Gaza will strengthen their respective candidacies at the expense of Bibi Netanyahu, the Likud party candidate, who up to now has been heavily favored to win the election.
If, in order to survive, Israel is seen by the rest of the world as the villain, so be it. That should not deter the Jewish state from dictating the terms of any peace agreement. Those, like Olmert, Livni and Barack who see Mahmoud Abbas as a trustworthy "partner in peace," disregard the Palestinian president's oft-proclaimed vows to eliminate the Jewish state from the map of the world.
Abbas speaks with a forked tongue. When speaking in English to American and European audiences, Abbas says he wants two states, Palestine and Israel, existing peacefully side by side. But whenever he speaks in Arabic to the Palestinians and other Jew-hating Arabs, that is a far cry from what he says. Time after time Abbas has made it clear in Arabic that there can be only one state, and that state is Palestine.
Little known is the fact that Abbas literally earned a doctorate in Holocaust denial. His doctoral thesis became a book, "The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism," in which he denounces "the Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that 6 million Jews were killed." With his "one state" proclamations in Arabic and his denial of the Holocaust, how can any Israelis in their right mind trust Abbas as a partner in peace?
Of the three candidates, Bibi Netanyahu is the only one who is resolute enough to withstand the pressure from the United Nations, the European Union and Russia for Israel to commit national suicide by giving the Palestinians "land for peace" - land that the Jewish state will need to defend itself in the event of another all out war. I hope the Isarelis will have the good sense to elect Bibi as their next prime minister.
The current conflict has its roots in the establishment 60 years ago of the Jewish state. Although Jews lived in what used to be known as Palestine long before Muhammad was born and have continued to live there since his birth, they are seen as European interlopers in the Muslim world.
Do the Palestinians have some legitimate grievances against Israel. Yes they do. A lot of Israeli land once belonged to the Palestinians. But it was the Arabs' attempt to prevent the birth of the Jewish state and their subsequent wars to destroy it, that is as much, if not more, responsible for the loss of Palestinian lands.
Life for the Palestinians has also been made difficult by Israel's harsh military controls in the territories captured during the 1967 war. But those harsh measures were put in place only after the Palestinians repeatedly sent suicide bombers into Israel proper to blow up cafes, nightclubs, bus stops, busses and other civilian targets.
In the context of villains or victims, the Muslim world, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia have all consistently viewed Israel as the villain and the Palestinians as the victims in every dispute between the two peoples. Israel is damned if it responds to terrorism and damned if it does not.
Those who see Israel as the villain would be well advised to look at the character of the pro-Palestinian demonstrations protesting Israel's attacks on Gaza which were held in San Francisco. The protesters carried signs which contained the following slogans in Arabic:
"Itbach al Yahud" (slaughter the Jews), "Falastin balad'na w'al Yahud qalab'na" (Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs), "ba ruh, ba dam, nafdeek ya Falastin" (with our soul, with our blood, we will cleanse you oh Palestine), "al mawt al Yahud" (death to the Jews), "Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahud, jaish-Muhammad saya'ud" (Khaybar Khaybar oh Jews, the army of Muhammad will return).
[That last slogan refers to the battle of Khaybar where the prophet Muhammad opportunistically attacked and slaughtered the Jews who had been hospitable to another Arab tribe. The subsequent sacking of Khaybar by Muhammad's forces re-energized the brigands who had flocked to his cause, and persuaded several Bedouin tribes to join Muhammad's forces in hopes of fun and profit.]
The San Francisco protesters also carried signs containing the following slogan in English: "Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea" - which states in no uncertain terms the intent of the Palestinians to destroy the Jewish state. And how did they come up with that slogan? It originated with the late Faisal Husseini, until his death the head of Mahmoud Abbas' "moderate" Fatah faction, who in 2001 told Egypt's weekly Al-Arabi that, "Our final goal is to liberate all of historical Palestine FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA."
As it happened to be, the vast majority of the protesters in San Francisco were not even Palestinians. About 80 percent were demonstrators from the Bay Area's well-established left-wing. And not surprisingly, some of those protesters were politically correct Jews.
With all the hatred against the Jewish state, what is Israel to do? Israel must look out for its security and long-term survival, the international community be damned! As George Will and other conservative commentators have noted: Land for peace does not work in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel cannot afford to return to its pre-1967 borders. That would be committing national suicide. It must maintain those parts of the West Bank which contain the permanent Israeli settlements. It must enlarge its nine-mile wide neck to keep it from being cut in half in the event of another war. It must not cede East Jerusalem to the Palestinians because that part would be a dagger pointed at the heart of Israel. For its survival, Israel must continue to have access to the headwaters of the Jordan River. And in order to keep its enemies at bay, Israel must continue to develop and maintain its nuclear weapons deterrent.
Israel has had every right to retaliate with all its might against the daily Gazan rocket barrages launched against its southern communities. But what about the timing of its attack against Gaza? It has more to do with Israeli politics than anything else. Ehud "The Idiot" Olmert, the discredited outgoing prime-minister, is trying to restore his tarnished reputation. Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, and Ehud Barak, the defense minister, are both candidates for prime-minister in the upcoming February elections.
Livni, the Kadima party candidate, and Barack, the Labor party candidate, are hoping the attacks against Gaza will strengthen their respective candidacies at the expense of Bibi Netanyahu, the Likud party candidate, who up to now has been heavily favored to win the election.
If, in order to survive, Israel is seen by the rest of the world as the villain, so be it. That should not deter the Jewish state from dictating the terms of any peace agreement. Those, like Olmert, Livni and Barack who see Mahmoud Abbas as a trustworthy "partner in peace," disregard the Palestinian president's oft-proclaimed vows to eliminate the Jewish state from the map of the world.
Abbas speaks with a forked tongue. When speaking in English to American and European audiences, Abbas says he wants two states, Palestine and Israel, existing peacefully side by side. But whenever he speaks in Arabic to the Palestinians and other Jew-hating Arabs, that is a far cry from what he says. Time after time Abbas has made it clear in Arabic that there can be only one state, and that state is Palestine.
Little known is the fact that Abbas literally earned a doctorate in Holocaust denial. His doctoral thesis became a book, "The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism," in which he denounces "the Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that 6 million Jews were killed." With his "one state" proclamations in Arabic and his denial of the Holocaust, how can any Israelis in their right mind trust Abbas as a partner in peace?
Of the three candidates, Bibi Netanyahu is the only one who is resolute enough to withstand the pressure from the United Nations, the European Union and Russia for Israel to commit national suicide by giving the Palestinians "land for peace" - land that the Jewish state will need to defend itself in the event of another all out war. I hope the Isarelis will have the good sense to elect Bibi as their next prime minister.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
BAIL DENIED, LA-Z-BOY JAILED IN TEXAS LOCKUP
Only in Texas. It seems that the Lone Star State is never for want of being a laughingstock of America, as illustrated in the following news report:
TEXAS JAIL CLOSES AFTER RECLINERS FOUND IN CELLS
by Angela K. Brown, Associated Press Writer - Sat Jan 3, 7:39 am ET
Fort Worth, Texas – A jail in northern Texas has been closed and its nearly 60 inmates transferred as authorities investigate what they call dangerous conditions for jailers and those behind bars — including cells that locked from the inside or contained recliners. Five inmates had already been moved from the Montague County jail to one in a nearby county this month after an FBI raid, said Jack McGaughey, district attorney for Montague, Clay and Archer counties.
McGaughey declined to say what prompted the investigation, also being conducted by the Texas Rangers. But he said authorities found contraband in the jail. New Sheriff Paul Cunningham moved the inmates to the Wise County jail on Thursday a few hours after he was sworn in.
McGaughey said some surveillance cameras' cords had been disconnected; recliners were in cells; some bathrooms and cells could be locked from the inside; and inmates had made partitions out of paper towels to block jailers' views inside their cells. One alarming discovery was a type of rack made of nails, he said.
This action was taken because there was a concern for the safety of the prisoners and the jail personnel," McGaughey said Friday.
Some inmates had apparently used extension cords to lock deputies out, and unidentified pills were strewn about other jail cells, Dallas-Fort Worth television station WFAA reported.
No one has been arrested, but McGaughey plans to present evidence to a grand jury and said "a number of people" — inmates as well as jailers — could be indicted.
The U.S. attorney's office also is working with the FBI and may bring federal charges, McGaughey said. The FBI in Dallas did not immediately return calls seeking comment Friday.
Cunningham told WFAA-TV that the conditions made him "shiver" but said he hopes the jail will reopen in two months, with repairs made and inmates back under a new set of rules.
The jail in Montague County, about 65 miles northwest of Fort Worth, has had problems in the past.
In early 2002, four inmates broke out after overpowering a guard with a homemade knife. The two convicted killers and two murder suspects drove off in the guard's SUV but were caught 10 days later at an Oklahoma convenience store.
The Montague County jail had been put on warning about three months before the escape for falling short of the guard-to-inmate ratio. After the breakout officials made a surprise visit and found the jail still out of compliance.
TEXAS JAIL CLOSES AFTER RECLINERS FOUND IN CELLS
by Angela K. Brown, Associated Press Writer - Sat Jan 3, 7:39 am ET
Fort Worth, Texas – A jail in northern Texas has been closed and its nearly 60 inmates transferred as authorities investigate what they call dangerous conditions for jailers and those behind bars — including cells that locked from the inside or contained recliners. Five inmates had already been moved from the Montague County jail to one in a nearby county this month after an FBI raid, said Jack McGaughey, district attorney for Montague, Clay and Archer counties.
McGaughey declined to say what prompted the investigation, also being conducted by the Texas Rangers. But he said authorities found contraband in the jail. New Sheriff Paul Cunningham moved the inmates to the Wise County jail on Thursday a few hours after he was sworn in.
McGaughey said some surveillance cameras' cords had been disconnected; recliners were in cells; some bathrooms and cells could be locked from the inside; and inmates had made partitions out of paper towels to block jailers' views inside their cells. One alarming discovery was a type of rack made of nails, he said.
This action was taken because there was a concern for the safety of the prisoners and the jail personnel," McGaughey said Friday.
Some inmates had apparently used extension cords to lock deputies out, and unidentified pills were strewn about other jail cells, Dallas-Fort Worth television station WFAA reported.
No one has been arrested, but McGaughey plans to present evidence to a grand jury and said "a number of people" — inmates as well as jailers — could be indicted.
The U.S. attorney's office also is working with the FBI and may bring federal charges, McGaughey said. The FBI in Dallas did not immediately return calls seeking comment Friday.
Cunningham told WFAA-TV that the conditions made him "shiver" but said he hopes the jail will reopen in two months, with repairs made and inmates back under a new set of rules.
The jail in Montague County, about 65 miles northwest of Fort Worth, has had problems in the past.
In early 2002, four inmates broke out after overpowering a guard with a homemade knife. The two convicted killers and two murder suspects drove off in the guard's SUV but were caught 10 days later at an Oklahoma convenience store.
The Montague County jail had been put on warning about three months before the escape for falling short of the guard-to-inmate ratio. After the breakout officials made a surprise visit and found the jail still out of compliance.
Friday, January 02, 2009
FROMA HARROP, PLEASE GET REAL!
Froma Harrop, a syndicated columnist, had an op-ed piece in yesterday's Houston Chronicle in which she "agrees with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's view that there will be no peace if Palestinians are shortchanged on territory." Harrop is out of her ever loving mind if she agrees with the inept and discredited Olmert, a crook at that.
Olmert (to whom I've often referred to as "Ehud the Idiot") had an interview last September with the left-wing Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot. As relayed by Harrop, here is what the idiot said: "We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians, meaning a withdrawal from nearly all, if not all, of the (occupied) territories. Some percentage of these territories would remain in our hands, but we must give the Palestinians the same percentage (of territory elsewhere) --- without this, there will be no peace."
And would that withdrawal include parts of Jerusalem? Olmert said, "Including, Jerusalem." His reasoning for giving up East Jerusalem is that if Israel retained all of the city, it would have to absorb another 270,000 Arabs into the country.
Ehud the Idiot's peace plan is a desperate attempt on his part to restore his image, an image badly tarnished by his botched handling of the war with Hezbollah and his recent exposure as a crook. Olmert's peace plan is nothing more than a prescription for the eventual extinction of Israel, as is the "Road Map to Peace," the brainchild of the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States.
Harrop concludes that inorder to achieve peace, "a political solution (to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) must give Palestinians full control of their space and an approximate return to the borders before the 1967 war. For every square foot they don't get back, they get another square foot from somewhere in Israel. That ultimately has to be the deal, and the violent confrontation in Gaza changes none of it."
The eventual extinction of Israel is the avowed goal of the Palestinian leadership, "moderates" and radicals alike. Harrop's ultimate deal will ensure the eventual disappearance of a Jewish state from the map of the world. I responded to Froma Harrop (fharrop@projo.com) with the following e-mail:
Dear Ms. Harrop
I am sorry to say this, but you must be out of your ever loving mind if you believe that Ehud Olmert's prescription for peace is anything but a plan which will lead to the eventual destruction of the Jewish state.
The Palestinians, both "moderates" and radicals have vowed time after time that their goal is the eventtual elimination of Israel from the world map. The "Road Map to Peace" as envisioned by the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States, is seen by the Palestinians as a mere stepping stone on the road to the extinction of Israel.
Shortly before his death in 2001, Faisal Husseini, a "moderate" Palestinian leader who was a favorite of the Israeli left, gave an interview to Egypt's weekly AL-ARABI in which he stated, "Our final goal is to liberate all of historical Palestine from the river to the sea."
Mahmoud Abbas and other leaders of his Fatah party have repeatedly called for the return of the land occupied by the Israelis. By that they mean not only the occupied West Bank, but also the State of Israel itself.
Abbas speaks with a forked tongue. When speaking in English to American and European audiences, Abbas says he wants two states, Palestine and Israel, existing peacefully side by side. But whenever he speaks in Arabic to the Palestinians and other Jew-hating Arabs, that is a far cry from what he says. Time after time Abbas has made it clear in Arabic that there can be only one state, and that state is Palestine.
For its security and survival, the State of Israel must include its long-time established West Bank settlements. It must enlarge the narrow nine-mile wide neck which places it in danger of being cut in half. It must maintain access to the headwaters of the Jordan River.
And Jerusalem must remain an undivided part of Israel. A Palestinian part of Jerusalem will be a dagger pointed at the heart of the Jewish state. Israel should pay for the relocation to the West Bank of the homes and businesses of Jerusalem's Palestinians.
Ohlmert has been an inept and discredited leader, and a crooked one at that. He is trying desperately to restore his tarnished reputation by proposing his suiciadal peace plans. What part of Israel, a mere fly speck on the world map, would he give to the Palestinians in exchange for the West Bank parts Israel would keep?
I hope the Israelis will have the good sense to chose Bibi Netanyahu in the coming elections. He is the only Israeli leader resolute enough to resist the pressure by the international community for the Jewish state to commit suicide. He will ensure that any peace plan will not leave Israael's security and survival in doubt.
Ms. Harrop, please get real!
Respectfully yours
Olmert (to whom I've often referred to as "Ehud the Idiot") had an interview last September with the left-wing Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot. As relayed by Harrop, here is what the idiot said: "We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians, meaning a withdrawal from nearly all, if not all, of the (occupied) territories. Some percentage of these territories would remain in our hands, but we must give the Palestinians the same percentage (of territory elsewhere) --- without this, there will be no peace."
And would that withdrawal include parts of Jerusalem? Olmert said, "Including, Jerusalem." His reasoning for giving up East Jerusalem is that if Israel retained all of the city, it would have to absorb another 270,000 Arabs into the country.
Ehud the Idiot's peace plan is a desperate attempt on his part to restore his image, an image badly tarnished by his botched handling of the war with Hezbollah and his recent exposure as a crook. Olmert's peace plan is nothing more than a prescription for the eventual extinction of Israel, as is the "Road Map to Peace," the brainchild of the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States.
Harrop concludes that inorder to achieve peace, "a political solution (to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) must give Palestinians full control of their space and an approximate return to the borders before the 1967 war. For every square foot they don't get back, they get another square foot from somewhere in Israel. That ultimately has to be the deal, and the violent confrontation in Gaza changes none of it."
The eventual extinction of Israel is the avowed goal of the Palestinian leadership, "moderates" and radicals alike. Harrop's ultimate deal will ensure the eventual disappearance of a Jewish state from the map of the world. I responded to Froma Harrop (fharrop@projo.com) with the following e-mail:
Dear Ms. Harrop
I am sorry to say this, but you must be out of your ever loving mind if you believe that Ehud Olmert's prescription for peace is anything but a plan which will lead to the eventual destruction of the Jewish state.
The Palestinians, both "moderates" and radicals have vowed time after time that their goal is the eventtual elimination of Israel from the world map. The "Road Map to Peace" as envisioned by the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States, is seen by the Palestinians as a mere stepping stone on the road to the extinction of Israel.
Shortly before his death in 2001, Faisal Husseini, a "moderate" Palestinian leader who was a favorite of the Israeli left, gave an interview to Egypt's weekly AL-ARABI in which he stated, "Our final goal is to liberate all of historical Palestine from the river to the sea."
Mahmoud Abbas and other leaders of his Fatah party have repeatedly called for the return of the land occupied by the Israelis. By that they mean not only the occupied West Bank, but also the State of Israel itself.
Abbas speaks with a forked tongue. When speaking in English to American and European audiences, Abbas says he wants two states, Palestine and Israel, existing peacefully side by side. But whenever he speaks in Arabic to the Palestinians and other Jew-hating Arabs, that is a far cry from what he says. Time after time Abbas has made it clear in Arabic that there can be only one state, and that state is Palestine.
For its security and survival, the State of Israel must include its long-time established West Bank settlements. It must enlarge the narrow nine-mile wide neck which places it in danger of being cut in half. It must maintain access to the headwaters of the Jordan River.
And Jerusalem must remain an undivided part of Israel. A Palestinian part of Jerusalem will be a dagger pointed at the heart of the Jewish state. Israel should pay for the relocation to the West Bank of the homes and businesses of Jerusalem's Palestinians.
Ohlmert has been an inept and discredited leader, and a crooked one at that. He is trying desperately to restore his tarnished reputation by proposing his suiciadal peace plans. What part of Israel, a mere fly speck on the world map, would he give to the Palestinians in exchange for the West Bank parts Israel would keep?
I hope the Israelis will have the good sense to chose Bibi Netanyahu in the coming elections. He is the only Israeli leader resolute enough to resist the pressure by the international community for the Jewish state to commit suicide. He will ensure that any peace plan will not leave Israael's security and survival in doubt.
Ms. Harrop, please get real!
Respectfully yours
HAMAS' STRATEGY
In today's Townhall.com, columnist Charles Krauthammer expressed his views on the current conflict between Israel and Hamas. What I found most interesting was his explanation of the strategy behind Hamas' rocket barrages, attacks which Hamas knew for certain to be an invitation for Israel to retaliate with its military might. Here is Krauthammer's Townhall.com column:
THE NECESSITY OF ISRAEL
by Charles Krauthammer
Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons. -- Associated Press, Dec. 27
WASHINGTON -- Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.
Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis -- 6,464 launched from Gaza in the last three years -- deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.
This has two purposes. First, counting on the moral scrupulousness of Israel, Hamas figures civilian proximity might help protect at least part of its arsenal. Second, knowing that Israelis have new precision weapons that may allow them to attack nonetheless, Hamas hopes that inevitable collateral damage -- or, if it is really fortunate, an errant Israeli bomb -- will kill large numbers of its own people for which, of course, the world will blame Israel.
For Hamas the only thing more prized than dead Jews are dead Palestinians. The religion of Jew-murder and self-martyrdom is ubiquitous. And deeply perverse, such as the Hamas TV children's program in which an adorable live-action Palestinian Mickey Mouse is beaten to death by an Israeli (then replaced by his more militant cousin, Nahoul the Bee, who vows to continue on Mickey's path to martyrdom).
At war today in Gaza, one combatant is committed to causing the most civilian pain and suffering on both sides. The other combatant is committed to saving as many lives as possible -- also on both sides. It's a recurring theme. Israel gave similar warnings to Southern Lebanese villagers before attacking Hezbollah in the Lebanon war of 2006. The Israelis did this knowing it would lose for them the element of surprise and cost the lives of their own soldiers.
That is the asymmetry of means between Hamas and Israel. But there is equal clarity regarding the asymmetry of ends. Israel has but a single objective in Gaza -- peace: the calm, open, normal relations it offered Gaza when it withdrew in 2005. Doing something never done by the Turkish, British, Egyptian and Jordanian rulers of Palestine, the Israelis gave the Palestinians their first sovereign territory ever in Gaza.
What ensued? This is not ancient history. Did the Palestinians begin building the state that is supposedly their great national aim? No. No roads, no industry, no courts, no civil society at all. The flourishing greenhouses that Israel left behind for the Palestinians were destroyed and abandoned. Instead, Gaza's Iranian-sponsored rulers have devoted all their resources to turning it into a terror base -- importing weapons, training terrorists, building tunnels with which to kidnap Israelis on the other side. And of course firing rockets unceasingly.
The grievance? It cannot be occupation, military control or settlers. They were all removed in September 2005. There's only one grievance and Hamas is open about it. Israel's very existence.
Nor does Hamas conceal its strategy. Provoke conflict. Wait for the inevitable civilian casualties. Bring down the world's opprobrium on Israel. Force it into an untenable cease-fire -- exactly as happened in Lebanon. Then, as in Lebanon, rearm, rebuild and mobilize for the next round. Perpetual war. Since its raison d'etre is the eradication of Israel, there are only two possible outcomes: the defeat of Hamas or the extinction of Israel.
Israel's only response is to try to do what it failed to do after the Gaza withdrawal. The unpardonable strategic error of its architect, Ariel Sharon, was not the withdrawal itself but the failure to immediately establish a deterrence regime under which no violence would be tolerated after the removal of any and all Israeli presence -- the ostensible justification for previous Palestinian attacks. Instead, Israel allowed unceasing rocket fire, implicitly acquiescing to a state of active war and indiscriminate terror.
Hamas' rejection of an extension of its often-violated six-month cease-fire (during which the rockets never stopped, just were less frequent) gave Israel a rare opportunity to establish the norm it should have insisted upon three years ago: no rockets, no mortar fire, no kidnapping, no acts of war. As the U.S. government has officially stated: a sustainable and enduring cease-fire.
If this fighting ends with anything less than that, Israel will have lost again. It can ill afford to lose any more wars.
THE NECESSITY OF ISRAEL
by Charles Krauthammer
Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons. -- Associated Press, Dec. 27
WASHINGTON -- Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.
Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis -- 6,464 launched from Gaza in the last three years -- deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.
This has two purposes. First, counting on the moral scrupulousness of Israel, Hamas figures civilian proximity might help protect at least part of its arsenal. Second, knowing that Israelis have new precision weapons that may allow them to attack nonetheless, Hamas hopes that inevitable collateral damage -- or, if it is really fortunate, an errant Israeli bomb -- will kill large numbers of its own people for which, of course, the world will blame Israel.
For Hamas the only thing more prized than dead Jews are dead Palestinians. The religion of Jew-murder and self-martyrdom is ubiquitous. And deeply perverse, such as the Hamas TV children's program in which an adorable live-action Palestinian Mickey Mouse is beaten to death by an Israeli (then replaced by his more militant cousin, Nahoul the Bee, who vows to continue on Mickey's path to martyrdom).
At war today in Gaza, one combatant is committed to causing the most civilian pain and suffering on both sides. The other combatant is committed to saving as many lives as possible -- also on both sides. It's a recurring theme. Israel gave similar warnings to Southern Lebanese villagers before attacking Hezbollah in the Lebanon war of 2006. The Israelis did this knowing it would lose for them the element of surprise and cost the lives of their own soldiers.
That is the asymmetry of means between Hamas and Israel. But there is equal clarity regarding the asymmetry of ends. Israel has but a single objective in Gaza -- peace: the calm, open, normal relations it offered Gaza when it withdrew in 2005. Doing something never done by the Turkish, British, Egyptian and Jordanian rulers of Palestine, the Israelis gave the Palestinians their first sovereign territory ever in Gaza.
What ensued? This is not ancient history. Did the Palestinians begin building the state that is supposedly their great national aim? No. No roads, no industry, no courts, no civil society at all. The flourishing greenhouses that Israel left behind for the Palestinians were destroyed and abandoned. Instead, Gaza's Iranian-sponsored rulers have devoted all their resources to turning it into a terror base -- importing weapons, training terrorists, building tunnels with which to kidnap Israelis on the other side. And of course firing rockets unceasingly.
The grievance? It cannot be occupation, military control or settlers. They were all removed in September 2005. There's only one grievance and Hamas is open about it. Israel's very existence.
Nor does Hamas conceal its strategy. Provoke conflict. Wait for the inevitable civilian casualties. Bring down the world's opprobrium on Israel. Force it into an untenable cease-fire -- exactly as happened in Lebanon. Then, as in Lebanon, rearm, rebuild and mobilize for the next round. Perpetual war. Since its raison d'etre is the eradication of Israel, there are only two possible outcomes: the defeat of Hamas or the extinction of Israel.
Israel's only response is to try to do what it failed to do after the Gaza withdrawal. The unpardonable strategic error of its architect, Ariel Sharon, was not the withdrawal itself but the failure to immediately establish a deterrence regime under which no violence would be tolerated after the removal of any and all Israeli presence -- the ostensible justification for previous Palestinian attacks. Instead, Israel allowed unceasing rocket fire, implicitly acquiescing to a state of active war and indiscriminate terror.
Hamas' rejection of an extension of its often-violated six-month cease-fire (during which the rockets never stopped, just were less frequent) gave Israel a rare opportunity to establish the norm it should have insisted upon three years ago: no rockets, no mortar fire, no kidnapping, no acts of war. As the U.S. government has officially stated: a sustainable and enduring cease-fire.
If this fighting ends with anything less than that, Israel will have lost again. It can ill afford to lose any more wars.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
THE LEFT'S HATRED OF ISRAEL
At first, because of the Holocaust, the left-wing backed the establishment of a Jewish state. But the left's support of Israel was quite short-lived. It quickly saw the Palestinians as displaced victims suffering at the hands of a fascist Jewish regime. Nevermind that the Arab states, for political purposes, deliberately forced the Palestinians to remain in squalid refugee camps. Nevermind the wars started by the Arabs to destroy Israel, wars which exacerbated the plight of the Palestinians.
The left's hatred of Israel has benn demonstrated over and over again since the early 1950's. National Public Radio (NPR) has often been accused of being a voice for America's left-wing. Emmett Tyrrell, the founder, publisher and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator, has a column in today's Townhall.com which he wrote because of the "downright contemptuous" way one of NPR's reporters treated the Israeli ambassador to the United States during an interview about Israel's military response to daily rocket barrages by Hamas.
Tyrrell wrote, "I wonder what made the NPR catastrophist so angry." The answer is simple - his anger is just one more example of the left's hatred for the Jewish state. Tyrrell goes on to express his views on the conflicet between Israel and Hamas. Here is his Townhall.com column:
RESPONDING TO INCOMING MISSLES
by Emmett Tyrrell
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Does anyone know the name of the National Public Radio interviewer who was so disdainful of Israel's ambassador to the United States on the morning of Dec. 31? I missed his name. I would like to give him an award for sarcasm, rudeness and, well, controlled rage. Maybe he would accept my shoes.
The interviewer is perhaps a graduate of one of our country's esteemed anger management centers. Very theatrically, he cut the Israeli ambassador off in the midst of the ambassador's variations on the theme of peace and goodwill and that sort of thing.
I wonder what made the NPR catastrophist so angry. I can understand the professional journalist suffering some mild pique. The ambassador obviously was not giving him the answers he sought. Yet this fellow was downright contemptuous. To employ a word currently in fashion, I would say his response to the Israeli ambassador was disproportional.
It is dreadful that Gaza, one of the most densely populated places on earth, is under heavy aerial bombardment from Israel. Yet Hamas, the governing entity in Gaza, has been lobbing shrapnel-filled missiles into Israel on a regular basis for months. Two weeks ago, Hamas arbitrarily broke its six-month ceasefire with Israel, and the danger to Israeli life and property has gotten worse. How many missiles is Israel to suffer before it is warranted to defend its territory and its people?
Now that word "disproportional" is being raised among foreign policy elites. Israeli air strikes since Saturday have killed several hundred Palestinians and injured several thousand. So we are hearing that the Israeli actions are "disproportional."
I can almost imagine a learned seminar being convened here in Washington wherein the assembled gogues excogitate precisely how many incoming Hamas missiles will warrant one air strike or more. And how will these advocates of proportionality factor in the targets of the Israeli air strikes?
It is tragic that Palestinian civilians are dying, but Hamas locates its military installations and administrative facilities in civilian areas precisely to dissuade Israel from attacking Hamas as it insouciantly bombards Israel, its soldiers and, more frequently, its civilians.
A couple of decades back, I wrote that the Palestinian terrorists -- and Hamas is a fully accredited terrorist group -- were the only fighters I knew of that target civilians rather than soldiers. That was pretty much true back then. Yet as terrorist organizations have proliferated, the targeting solely of civilians has become widespread throughout the world. Now apparently the civilized world has become accustomed to this outrage. Yet it is to Israel's credit that it remains outraged by a terrorist group that would target noncombatants for strategic purposes.
I have no idea how many Hamas strikes against civilians warrant how many Israeli acts of retribution. Frankly, such calculations seem to me as beside the point. The real question is how many Israeli strikes are needed to close down Hamas? That is what is necessary. The Israelis have at their border a violent, unprincipled enemy that has vowed to destroy Israel. Hamas not only vows to destroy Israel, it bombards Israel and expects the world to object when Israel counterattacks.
Now that strikes me as irrational. Hamas should accept the consequences of its assaults on Israel. Hamas might even renew the ceasefire that it broke. For that matter, Hamas might end its war against Israel. I doubt the Israelis would object.
The left's hatred of Israel has benn demonstrated over and over again since the early 1950's. National Public Radio (NPR) has often been accused of being a voice for America's left-wing. Emmett Tyrrell, the founder, publisher and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator, has a column in today's Townhall.com which he wrote because of the "downright contemptuous" way one of NPR's reporters treated the Israeli ambassador to the United States during an interview about Israel's military response to daily rocket barrages by Hamas.
Tyrrell wrote, "I wonder what made the NPR catastrophist so angry." The answer is simple - his anger is just one more example of the left's hatred for the Jewish state. Tyrrell goes on to express his views on the conflicet between Israel and Hamas. Here is his Townhall.com column:
RESPONDING TO INCOMING MISSLES
by Emmett Tyrrell
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Does anyone know the name of the National Public Radio interviewer who was so disdainful of Israel's ambassador to the United States on the morning of Dec. 31? I missed his name. I would like to give him an award for sarcasm, rudeness and, well, controlled rage. Maybe he would accept my shoes.
The interviewer is perhaps a graduate of one of our country's esteemed anger management centers. Very theatrically, he cut the Israeli ambassador off in the midst of the ambassador's variations on the theme of peace and goodwill and that sort of thing.
I wonder what made the NPR catastrophist so angry. I can understand the professional journalist suffering some mild pique. The ambassador obviously was not giving him the answers he sought. Yet this fellow was downright contemptuous. To employ a word currently in fashion, I would say his response to the Israeli ambassador was disproportional.
It is dreadful that Gaza, one of the most densely populated places on earth, is under heavy aerial bombardment from Israel. Yet Hamas, the governing entity in Gaza, has been lobbing shrapnel-filled missiles into Israel on a regular basis for months. Two weeks ago, Hamas arbitrarily broke its six-month ceasefire with Israel, and the danger to Israeli life and property has gotten worse. How many missiles is Israel to suffer before it is warranted to defend its territory and its people?
Now that word "disproportional" is being raised among foreign policy elites. Israeli air strikes since Saturday have killed several hundred Palestinians and injured several thousand. So we are hearing that the Israeli actions are "disproportional."
I can almost imagine a learned seminar being convened here in Washington wherein the assembled gogues excogitate precisely how many incoming Hamas missiles will warrant one air strike or more. And how will these advocates of proportionality factor in the targets of the Israeli air strikes?
It is tragic that Palestinian civilians are dying, but Hamas locates its military installations and administrative facilities in civilian areas precisely to dissuade Israel from attacking Hamas as it insouciantly bombards Israel, its soldiers and, more frequently, its civilians.
A couple of decades back, I wrote that the Palestinian terrorists -- and Hamas is a fully accredited terrorist group -- were the only fighters I knew of that target civilians rather than soldiers. That was pretty much true back then. Yet as terrorist organizations have proliferated, the targeting solely of civilians has become widespread throughout the world. Now apparently the civilized world has become accustomed to this outrage. Yet it is to Israel's credit that it remains outraged by a terrorist group that would target noncombatants for strategic purposes.
I have no idea how many Hamas strikes against civilians warrant how many Israeli acts of retribution. Frankly, such calculations seem to me as beside the point. The real question is how many Israeli strikes are needed to close down Hamas? That is what is necessary. The Israelis have at their border a violent, unprincipled enemy that has vowed to destroy Israel. Hamas not only vows to destroy Israel, it bombards Israel and expects the world to object when Israel counterattacks.
Now that strikes me as irrational. Hamas should accept the consequences of its assaults on Israel. Hamas might even renew the ceasefire that it broke. For that matter, Hamas might end its war against Israel. I doubt the Israelis would object.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)